BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING

Monday, July 14, 2008

Administrative Center – County Board Room

7:00 p.m. –  8:05 p.m. 

CALL TO ORDER

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. 2008-21  Edward Sye  N7875 County Road C  Mindoro WI 54644.  Permit denied to construct a covered porch addition to the existing residence that will lie within the required 50-ft building setback from the right-of-way of County Road C.  The property is described as:  Part of the NE-SE of Section 26, T 18 N, R 6 W.  Tax Parcel 5-1127-0.  Town of Farmington. 

Appearing in Favor:  Edward Sye  N7875 County Road C  Mindoro WI 54644.  I took a deck off the front of the house this spring.  We wanted to replace that with a covered porch (distributes diagram).  We’ll be closer to the house with the porch than the deck was.  The deck was built in the 1980’s.  We’ve been on the farm since 1977.  When I started removing the deck I was unaware we had an extended right of way in front of the house.  For some reason in front of our house it comes up to 60 feet and then angles back to the 33 feet.  The existing house on one corner is 107 feet from the centerline.  On the closest corner it’s 93 feet.  The porch will fit in the inset of the house.  On the north end it will be 97 feet to the centerline.  I have two pictures (distributes photos to board for viewing) that gives you an idea.  I have been to the town board.  They had no objections.  We won’t be changing the structure much closer to the road.  The machine shed will be about the same distance to the road.  I don’t anticipate a safety hazard.  There’s quite a hill our sets on. 

Question EILERTSON:  The deck that you removed – do you remember the size of that?

Answer SYE:  It came out 15 feet.  When I removed it, I didn’t anticipate…the custodian at the high school where I teach is helping me side the house.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence: 
(WEIBEL:)  Correspondence from Betty Sacia, Clerk for the Town of Farmington read into record.  Board approved request for variance at June 24, 2008 meeting. 

Motion Eilertson/Houlihan to approve.  Motion carried unanimously.     

APPEAL NO. 2008-23  John and Elaine Wyatt  W2874 Shorewood Ct  West Salem WI 54669.  Variance requested after-the-fact to retain retaining wall structures constructed within the 75-ft setback from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Neshonoc.  Variance also requested to construct a deck addition to the residence that will lie within the 75-ft setback from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Neshonoc.  The property is described as:  Lot 16, Shorewood.  Tax Parcel 7-1500-0.  Town of Hamilton.

Appearing in Favor:  John Wyatt, W2874 Shorewood Ct, West Salem WI  54669.  Received a letter from Chad Vandenlangenberg, met with him and spoke with Carrie Olson of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.  Talked with her about resolving this without a variance, couldn’t reach an agreement.  I met with Chad, thought it was best to proceed with a variance.  We purchased the home in 1995.  A deck had been built sometime in the late 1980’s and no one got a permit.  Staff determined the house is 98 feet back from the lake.  This gives us 23 feet to work with, which is more than ample (for a new deck).  So that’s not an issue.  The stone walls have been designated as retaining walls by the DNR.  When we purchased in 1995, we noticed erosion/runoff issues.  We picked rocks up at area farms, put them in a wheelbarrow and started working on the most serious drainage problems.  Started about 13 years ago.  All materials are natural.  Have followed the natural contours of the back yard.  We have it (erosion) under control.  No footings or foundations, concrete or adhesives.  Walls are one to three rocks high, maybe four to five in a couple of places.  We think it’s an improvement to the property.  Tried to be good stewards, didn’t set out to violate rules.  We’ve prepared pictures (refers to exhibits) that correspond with the second page.  Met with Hamilton Town Board.  They voted to unanimously support my variance.  I don’t know if they’ve sent a letter.

Question EILERTSON:  Did you install these in 1995?

Answer WYATT:  We began to in 1995.  We’ve been putting them in off and on for 13 years.

Question EILERTSON:  How much has the lake fluctuated in the past 13 years?

Answer WYATT:  On our property there’s a 3-foot berm except for on the far west side.  I got a permit about 10 years ago to cut some of the berm with a shovel, rake and wheelbarrow.  Recently the lake has been up on the neighbor’s yard when normally it’s back a little bit.  It doesn’t fluctuate a lot. 

Question EILERTSON:  The wall on the east side nearest the water – has the water ever come up to that?

Answer WYATT:  No.  That’s about 10 feet above the lake level. 

Question EILERTSON:  So the water would need to come up higher than it ever has in 13 years to reach that wall?

Answer WYATT:  I would say 6 feet to 10 feet above – it’s up around the base of that birch tree.  Neighbors would all be flooded out.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence:

WEIBEL:  None.  Chad Vandenlangenberg and Carrie Olson have been on-site and looked at this, but no written comments from the DNR.

Motion Houlihan/Eilertson to approve.  Discussion.  Motion passed unanimously. 

Remark RAYMER:  I was reminded that before we go any further that Appeal No. 2008-27 is being held over.  Is anyone here for that appeal?  I didn’t want people who may be waiting for that appeal to wait any longer.

APPEAL 2008-24  Kyle Brandt  2532 Lakeshore Dr  La Crosse WI 54603.  Permit denied to construct an attached above-ground pool and deck addition to the existing residence that will lie within the required side and rear yard setbacks.  The property is described as:  Lot 16, Block 15, 2^nd Island Park Addition.  Tax Parcel 4-549-0.  Town of Campbell.

Appearing in Favor:  Kyle Brandt, 2532 Lakeshore Drive, La Crosse WI  54603.  I need a variance to put in an above-ground pool.  I don’t have much room in the backyard.  It’s the only corner I can put it in.  Because of the county road setback I can’t put it in the front yard.  Realistically looking at it, this is about the only place I can put it in.  I did go and talk to all my neighbors and have them sign a paper saying they didn’t have a problem with it. 

Question RAYMER:  Did you got to the town board too?
Answer BRANDT:  Yes I did and they said they were going to send something to you.  They approved it. 

Question RAYMER:  Was that the town board themselves or was that the planning commission?

Answer BRANDT:  That was the zoning meeting.

Question RAYMER:  Okay, then it still needs to go to the town board.

Answer BRANDT:  The town board meeting was only a couple of days after.  The zoning commission said that they will send the approval to them.

Question EILERTSON:  Mr. Brandt, when you got your application, did you get a copy of this hardship sheet?

Answer BRANDT:  Yes, I believe so.

Question EILERTSON:  Did you take a minute to read it and study it?

Answer BRANDT:  A little bit.

Question EILERTSON:  The reason I am bringing this up is that this board has standards that we have to abide by and they are laid out here.  The first one says “unnecessary hardship” denied all reasonable use of the property.  How is the fact that if we deny this and you’re not going to have a pool there, how is that going to create a hardship for you?

Answer BRANDT:  Well, it’s for my kids, so it’s more of a hardship for my kids to not have a pool than me.  Does that answer your question?

Question EILERTSON:  No, not really.  We understand that the kids would enjoy having a pool.  Most all the children we know would enjoy having a pool.  But the standards that we have to follow says that this property has to have a hardship connected with your application for the construction of a pool.  In my opinion a pool is a luxury.  It’s not a hardship not to have one.  This is so stated in the standards we have to follow.  I wanted your comments as to how this was going to be a hardship if you don’t have one.

Answer BRANDT:  I don’t know how to answer that.  If it’s there it’s there, if it’s not it’s not.

Question RAYMER:  We have to look at this as the entire pool will be within the 25-foot rear yard setback area.  Was that addition approved to be within the setback?

Answer BRANDT:  It was there when I bought the house.

Question RAYMER:  I was wondering how that came to be.

Answer WEIBEL:  I don’t have any permit information on that in the file.

Question RAYMER:  How about the detached garage?

Answer WEIBEL:  The detached garage only has a 3-foot setback requirement, except for the utility easement that runs along the rear lot line.  It can not be into that easement if it is greater than 3 feet.

Question RAYMER:  So if Kyle wanted to put the pool back there he could have it right up against the setback line and easements?

Answer WEIBEL:  Yes.

Remarks RAYMER:  Because you attach this to your house, that’s why you have to abide by the 25-foot rule.  There are pools you can buy that have ladders that allow you to get in and out of the pool without stepping off a deck first. 

Remarks BRANDT:  It’s a small area so I’m trying to get the largest pool I can in there.

Question RAYMER:  You are looking to put in an 18-foot diameter pool and you have 20 feet to work with.  If I’m reading this map right, it looks like you still have room to put a detached pool back there.   Am I reading that right?

Answer EILERTSON:  I believe you are.

Remark WEIBEL:  If it’s a stand alone pool he can go to a 3-foot setback. 

Remark RAYMER:  You have another option and I think that is what Dave was referring to.  There has to be a reason that there is no other option for us to approve it and the way I look at it I agree with Dave.  There is another way to do it.  You just aren’t going to be able to attach it to the deck.

Reply BRANDT:  Okay.  By attaching the pool onto the deck I was trying to stay away from the easement as far as possible. 

Remark RAYMER:  It’s 5 feet wide in your yard and probably 5 feet into the neighbors so that the utilities have 10 feet to get through there.  That’s what the rule is and you can build right up to that.  That would be an option for you to put this pool in there.

Remark EILERTSON:  The other thing that concerned me, Mr. Brandt, is that the neighbor’s garage is very close to it.  Emergency vehicles and access would have a hard time getting back there.  That’s something we take into consideration. 

No one else appeared in favor of or opposed to this appeal.

Correspondence:

WEIBEL:  I have no correspondence from the Town of Campbell, but as it has been testified to, the Town did recommend approval.

I have a list of signatures that was presented here tonight.  It was dated July 1, 2008 and on the top of the form it reads:  “We approve of the variance that Kyle Brandt needs to install an above-ground pool.”  A list of names followed and was read into the record.

No further correspondence.

Motion Eilertson/Houlihan to deny the appeal.

Motion passed unanimously, appeal denied.

APPEAL 2008-25  Matthew R. Cromheecke, on behalf of Frank Watson, Dorothy Watson, Shirley Harris, Joyce Goetz and Michael Davis Sr., 205 Green St  Box 778  Onalaska WI 54650.  Variance requested to create new lot configuration that would establish a 3-ft side and rear yard for a portion of an existing residence with attached garage.  The purpose of the new lot lines is to solve encroachments over the existing lot lines.  The properties are described as:  Lots 1, 2, 3 and the Northerly 10 feet of Lot 4, Block 1 of L.M. Goddards Addition.  Tax Parcels 4-1075-0 and 4-1077-1.  Located at 1527 and 1523 Bainbridge Street.  Town of Campbell.

Appearing in Favor:  Matthew R. Cromheecke, 205 Green Street, Onalaska WI  54650.  I’m here today representing Frank Watson, Dorothy Watson, Shirley Harris, Joyce Goetz and I’m representing the family that owns the one parcel.  What we have is a standard residential property with an encroachment across it.  There was a ten-foot strip of property that was between these two parcels that was owned by La Crosse County until 1999.  It was for sale and Frank purchased that property.  It appears that the garage existed prior to that sale.  We had it surveyed and discovered the issue and want to correct it.  Both sides are in agreement to take care of this.  We have discussed this with zoning and it has also gone to the Town of Campbell last week.  What we are proposing is that there be an exchange of property.  The map shows that.  The reason for the exchange is so the lots don’t go below the minimum required lot size.  We’re proposing that the only way to do this is to go from an 8-foot setback to a 3-foot setback for that garage because the side-yards just don’t provide enough space to do something other than that and thereby corrected the issue.  That’s all I have.

Question RAYMER:  We talked about this didn’t we Mike?  The acreage didn’t change did it?

Answer WEIBEL:  The parcels to be exchanged between the parties in the end will have the same area as they have now.

Remark CROMHEECKE:  We are swapping the portion in front and behind the garage to equal the same amount of square footage each lot has currently.

No one else appeared to speak in favor or opposed.

Correspondence:  (WEIBEL) None.

Motion Eilertson/Houlihan to approve.  Motion carries unanimously.

APPEAL 2008-26  Tom A. Grosskopf  W4136 Schild Rd  West Salem WI 54669.  Permit denied to construct a 30-ft x 60-ft addition to an existing residence that fails to provide the minimum 25-ft total side yard for a 2-story residence.  The property is described as:  Part of Government Lot 8 in Section 8, T 16 N, R 6 W.  Tax Parcel 7-209-0.  Town of Hamilton.

Appearing in Favor:  Tom A. Grosskopf  W4136 Schild Rd  West Salem WI  54669.  I have pamphlets here describing what I am going to talk about.  The original zoning permit my father received on the property back in 1974 indicated a 20-foot side-yard setback.  As of late we have found out that it has changed or something got messed up.

Remark RAYMER:  A 20-ft side-yard would be for a one-story house.

Reply GROSSKOPF:  Not according to this.

Question RAYMER:  When the house was originally built it was a two-story house?

Answer GROSSKOPF:  Yes.

Question RAYMER:  Okay, so on the 1974 permit it says two-story house.  Have things changed since then Mike?
Answer WEIBEL:  No, things have not changed since then.

Question RAYMER:  At that time the lot was four acres.  Have you since split that lot?

Answer GROSSKOPF:  That’s correct. 

Question RAYMER:  So the side-yard was set at 10 feet?

Answer GROSSKOPF:  The side-yard setback says it is 8 feet on the original 1974 permit with a total of twenty.  The existing house is eight feet from the property line.  With the garage that I am proposing it still gives me 21 feet based on the 1974 permit.

Remark RAYMER:  If there was an error in 1974, it doesn’t mean that it carries on forever.  We have a chance to correct that now.  We can’t change the 8-foot, but we still would be able to enforce the 25-foot total. 

Question WEIBEL:  Are we talking about the same house?  Because the permit also shows the house being 89.5 feet from the south line. 

Answer GROSSKOPF:  That was before the garage was added.  The garage was added three or four years later. 

Question RAYMER:  Do we have a permit for the garage addition?
Answer WEIBEL:  I don’t see a permit in the file.

Question RAYMER:  Do you have anything?

Answer GROSSKOPF:  No I don’t.

Question RAYMER:  Is that your father?

Answer GROSSKOPF:  Yes.

Question RAYMER:  Does he recall if he got a zoning permit to put that garage up?

Answer GROSSKOPF:  According to him, yes.  As a kid I do remember seeing the permit in the garage window.

Remark WEIBEL:  If the existing house was built 89 feet from the south line and the garage was 28 feet wide, that distance doesn’t add up.  Either the house wasn’t built 89 feet from the line or…..

Reply GROSSKOPF:  According to the aerials I got from the zoning office, they are off.

Question WEIBEL:  Was that south line always the south line?
Answer GROSSKOPF:  Yes.  I’ve found a lot of discrepancies and this could go one way or another.

Remark RAYMER:  We still have to address that it is a two-story house and the total setback is 25 feet.

Remark GROSSKOPF:  My second point is that I’m getting trees falling on my vehicles.  In the past two years I have had three insurance claims on my vehicle. 

Question RAYMER:  Whose trees are they?

Answer GROSSKOPF:  Lynn Meyer.

Remark RAYMER:  That would be an issue between you and whoever owns those trees.  That doesn’t have any bearing on this.

Remark GROSSKOPF:  I consider it a hardship on my vehicles. 

Reply RAYMER:  Vehicle hardships aren’t what we deal with.  We are dealing with property hardships relating to structure.  What I’d like to know is that if the 8-foot setback was allowed back then, you would then have a total of 17 feet left on the south side of the garage if we are going to maintain the 25-foot total and that total should still be enforced as far as I look at it.

Question EILERTSON:  Is this proposed addition totally a garage?

Answer GROSSKOPF:  Yes.

Question EILERTSON:  Any living quarters in the back?

Answer GROSSKOPF:  No.  Just a garage.

Question EILERTSON:  Purely for storing and parking your vehicles.

Answer GROSSKOPF:  That’s correct.

Question EILERTSON:  Your existing garage is 28-ft x 29-ft right now?

Answer GROSSKOPF:  Yes.

Remark RAYMER:  Rear-yard wise there is no reason you can’t make this as big as you want back there.  The math on a 128.5-foot wide lot he is going to out to 107 feet in building width on a lot that is 128.5 feet wide.

Question EILERTSON:  Why does the proposed garage have to be 25.5 feet wide in the front?
Answer GROSSKOPF:  I have two full-size vehicles that are going in there.  I wanted to go with a 20-foot wide door.

No one else appeared in favor or opposed.

Correspondence:

Question WEIBEL:  I did not have any correspondence on this one.  Did you go to the town board Mr. Grosskopf and did they act on this?  Because I didn’t receive anything.

Answer GROSSKOPF:  Yes I did.  They passed it unanimously and said they were going to send something.

Motion Eilertson/Houlihan to deny the motion.  Motion passed unanimously, appeal was denied. 

  
APPEAL 2008-27  Gregory and Susan Halpern  5107 South Shore Drive  Delavan WI 53115.  Permit denied to construct a 13-ft x 57-ft combination deck and screen porch addition to an existing nonconforming residence that will further encroach into the required 75-ft building setback from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Onalaska.  The property is described as:  Lot 1 of Certified Survey Map No. 96 in Volume 4.  Located at W8113 County Road ZB.  Tax Parcel 10-1651-1.  Town of Onalaska. 

WEIBEL:  I have a letter dated July 14, 2008 addressed to the Board of Adjustment.  Board members please take note that the undersigned has requested that Appeal 2008-27 be held over.  Letter signed by Susan Halpern. 

Motion by Eilertson/Houlihan to hold over Appeal No. 2008-27.  Motion passes unanimously.

Motion by Houlihan/Eilertson to adjourn meeting.  Motion passes unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

Ron Peterson, Recorder