BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING

Monday, August 18, 2008

Administrative Center – County Board Room

7:00 p.m. –  8:04 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 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 64-ft average 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. 

Appearing in Favor:  Susan Halpern  5107 South Shore Drive  Delavan  WI  53115.  We have purchased the property that we are discussing tonight at W8113 County Road ZB in Onalaska.  We purchased in February in 2005 and have spent the last three years cleaning up the property.  It was in a great state of disrepair when we purchased it with lots of debris around the property and overgrown shrubbery.  We have been maintaining the property by painting the exterior of the property.  We would now like to put this deck and screen room addition on the house.  There is some history about this home.  It is known as Blackdeer point and is used as a reference point.  The property was initially built by Alvin Blackdeer who was a prominent member of the Ho-Chunk Nation.  Part of his building process was to make the property accessible for tribal functions.  They had several meetings, wedding, funerals and other ceremonies.  The property has a wide staircase which takes you from the front to the back lower level.  This lower level is where these meetings were held.  The piano which was used is still there along with a bar and a lower level bathroom with a urinal.  The property was set up to have access to the lower area.  When we purchased the property, the entrance to the lower level had fallen down.  There were remains of this entryway when we purchased such as concrete blocks.  The roof had caved down inside it.  We have removed some of these hazardous materials.  We have spoken to the neighbors about our proposal and told them that they have the opportunity to speak in favor of, or opposed to, this petition.  I have provided some letters from a few of the neighbors who are in favor of this.  The neighbors have been very supportive throughout our cleanup efforts.  We have also spoken to Barbara Blackdeer who is Alvin’s daughter.  She told us that this was also Alvin’s plan, to build a deck and screen room off the rear of the house.  This was also the former owners, Blaine Thorson and Sandra Guy, wishes as well.  Some other unique features of the property include a totem pole in the front yard and also an Indian burial ground which was sectioned off and donated back to the tribe.  We have tried to use earth tones on the exterior of the house.  The screen room and deck will also have earth tones to be less intrusive.  I have provided some pictures which show other properties along here to the north of our property.  These pictures show other structures, retaining walls, sheds, etc. which also sit very close to the water.  Farther down the channel, a property was given a variance to put this deck on for Jack and Betty Landercasper.  These pictures show other structures in the rear of the home which are also within the required setback such as the septic tanks.  I also provided a Quit Claim Deed to Muriel Blackdeer from the Corps of Engineers for that property to allow her to further develop that.  This picture shows the back of the property where the deck will go.  There is a patio there that was built in the 60’s.  There are also pictures showing the view of the property from the lake.  The neighbor’s have stated that what we have done really improves the view from the lake.  I did speak with Tim Dienger from the Town of Onalaska on July 11, 2008.  Tim did indicate that he felt that the Town Board would not have any objections to this proposal.  I was supposed to meet with him again on Monday the 14^th.  As you are probably aware, Tim passed away on July 13, 2008.  I was unable to get on the July agenda because it was full.  We are on the August agenda.  He did state that he was going to contact the county, but I am not sure if he did or not. 

Appearing in Favor:  Vicki Burke  W8349 Northshore Dr.  Onalaska  WI  54650.  I am the county supervisor in this district.  I live just down the channel from this property.  I am here to support her in her statements about the property.  She has given you lots of information about the property.  The proposed deck on the upper level will give access to the sliding glass doors.  There are issues there with the insurance company regarding those doors.  I have been on the property, and it does appear that where the construction will be does not encroach further into the setback than the existing house.

Remarks HALPERN:  I do have the letter from the insurance company regarding the patio doors.  They have asked us to remedy the safety hazard that currently exists.  We do have lots of family that go to this property along with some elderly relatives who cannot get to the back of the property currently.

Question EILERTSON:  Did the insurance company specify the size of the deck for the rear of the house?

Answer HALPERN:  No, they did not.  They had sent us a previous letter.  We explained that we needed to go through this variance process.  Then they issued us a new letter which gave us more time.  As you can see from the drawing, the new deck does not extend any further than the one corner of the house.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence: 
(WEIBEL:)  Correspondence from the Department of Natural Resources dated July 18, 2008 from Carrie Olson.

Question HALPERN:  Can I speak regarding that letter?

Answer RAYMER:  Yes.

Question HALPERN:  How can we build a screen room in that narrow of a space?  If they only allow a 5-ft walkway, that would be too narrow of a space for the screen room below. 

Answer RAYMER:  I think that what Carrie is intending is to allow you to have a walkway to gain access from the patio doors down to the ground level.

Question RAYMER:  Was there a deck on the rear of the house when you purchased it?

Answer HALPERN:  No, just the entryway room on the lower level.

Remarks EILERTSON:  I think that there is definitely a safety issue here.  I think that they do need a 5 or 6 foot walkway for ingress/egress out of the patio doors on the second level.

Question HALPERN:  Is there a way to postpone this appeal until the Town of Onalaska has met?

Answer RAYMER:  The town is advisory only on these appeals.  Usually they do not have any objections unless the neighbors are in opposition.

Remarks RAYMER:  I think that the DNR is saying that they would allow a walkway for ingress and egress and that the owners could build a code complying, detached screen room somewhere else on the property.

Question EILERTSON:  What door would you use to gain access into the screen room?

Answer HALPERN:  We would use the rear door on the lower level.

Remarks RAYMER:  That door would not get you directly into that room.

Remarks HALPERN:  It would be adjacent.

Remarks RAYMER:  So, you would have to go out that door and then into the screen room.  That was the issue with the DNR.  Then you might as well build a detached screen room.

Remarks HALPERN:  There are two windows within that screen room area which need to be replaced.  The intention was to make one of those windows into a door at some point in the future.  I did not include that in the place because it is cost prohibitive at this time. 

Remarks RAYMER:  Reading from the DNR letter, if the Halpern’s can build or place a reasonably sized structure to be in compliance with the county ordinance, then a hardship does not exist and a variance cannot be granted.  There is a lot of room on that property which is not within the setback.

Remarks HALPERN:  Where that door is, is where the entryway once stood.

Remarks RAYMER:  Yes, but that structure is now gone and you cannot rebuild it without a variance.

Remarks WEIBEL:  Just a point for the board members, a detached structure would need to meet the required 75 foot setback rather than the average setback of 64 feet.

Motion Eilertson/Houlihan to approve a variance for a 5’ wide deck/walkway from the patio doors along the house to the southeast for ingress/egress with stairs at a 45 degree angle as shown.  Motion carried unanimously.     

APPEAL 2008-28  Robert and Barbara Dostal, 1116 Charles St, La Crosse WI 54603.  Permit denied after-the-fact to reconstruct an existing attached deck in an alternate location lying within the required 75-ft building setback from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Neshonoc on property described as:  Part of Government Lot 4 in Section 36, T 17 N, R 6 W.  Tax Parcel 7-1261-0.  Property located at W2719 Lake Road.  Town of Hamilton. 

Appearing in Favor:  Robert  Dostal  1116 Charles St   La Crosse WI 54603.  The address in question here is W2719 Lake Road in West Salem.  What I am asking for is a variance.  I would like to leave the deck the way it is.  If that is not possible, there are two options shown.  One is to leave the deck in the existing area, but cut it back to 6-ft x 24-ft.  The other option is to move the deck to the side of the cabin, approximately the same size at 14’ x 20’.  One of the drawbacks of option #2 is the fact that there is a 5 ½ foot diameter tree that would be directly in front of the deck which would block the view to the lake, defeating the purpose of the deck.  Option one is certainly the better alternative.  The cottage itself is about 20 feet into the required 75’ setback.  The cottage was built in 1966 which makes it grandfathered.  I am asking for 6 more feet encroachment on the front.  So, that I can keep the deck as it is and cut off a portion of it.  It would be less expensive to do that.  I do not get around too well anymore and I would like a deck there to allow me to enjoy my property.  The land from the deck to the waters edge is a little steep and my wife and I cannot navigate that area too well on the grass, either.  If I can’t keep the deck the way it is, I would like to have option 1.  I know that the DNR would go along with option 2.  Chad also indicated to me that he would go along with option 2 as well.  Since we built that deck we have had less of an erosion problem from the front of the cabin to the water.  Before that, we had little rivers of water flowing from the cabin to the water.  I did not get a building permit at the time the deck was built.  I thought that the contractor did.  He assumed that I had.  When the project was finished, we were sitting on the deck discussing it and he asked me if I had obtained a building permit.  To which, I replied that I had not.  If I had applied for a permit at the time, they would have probably told me that I would not have been able to build it.  So, I am guilty of not getting a permit; that was 9 years ago.  The existing deck was built in May of 1999.  Had it been there for over 10 years, the deck would have been grandfathered.  I did not do anything intentionally wrong.  I would like to do something here and I would really like to have option number one.

Appearing in Favor:  Tom Dostal  N3685 County Road J  Rockland  WI.  Like my dad said, the deck was constructed 9 years ago.  This is the only area on the lot that is flat and accessible to my parents other than the back of the property by the shed.  It just seems like this would be a waste if we would have to remove the deck or move it to the side.  We are willing to make it shorter.  We will continue to contain and maintain the runoff that does occur from this property.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence: 
(WEIBEL:)  Correspondence from the Department of Natural Resources dated August 18, 2008 from Carrie Olson.

Question RAYMER:  Do we have anything from the Town Board?

Answer WEIBEL:  No, we do not.

Question RAYMER:  Did you meet with the Town Board?

Answer DOSTAL:  We met with the town last week, last Tuesday.  They supported both of our options.

Remarks RAYMER:  I really don’t see any difference here.  Everything is within the required setback anyway.  Just so you all are aware, there are lots of enforcement issues going on in the Town of Hamilton right now with the sale of the county property to the adjacent landowners surrounding Lake Neshonoc.  The option to move the existing deck to the side just moves it from one place within the setback to another.

Motion by Houlihan/Eilertson to allow the deck to remain but it cannot be structurally improved, replaced or repaired.  Motion carried unanimously.

APPEAL 2008-29  James P. Harter, 1308 La Crescent St, La Crosse WI 54603.  Variance requested to create two substandard lots for two existing single family homes.  The property is described as:  Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 4 Beadettes Addition and part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of Bouchers Addition.  Tax Parcel 4-974-0.  Located at 1304 and 1308 La Crescent Street.  Town of Campbell.

Appearing in favor:  James Harter  1308 La Crescent St.  La Crosse  WI  54603.  I am proposing to split this single lot into two smaller lots.  There are currently two homes on the property and I can’t sell either property without creating two lots.  I had K Don Pederson perform a survey to split the parcel into two lots.  I have to split these lots just to be able to get a building permit.  I can’t do anything to the properties without this variance.

Question RAYMER:  You live at the 1308 address?

Answer HARTER:  Yes.

Question RAYMER:  The other house is a rental property?

Answer HARTER:  Yes.

Question EILERTSON:  You currently own 3 lots and you are not proposing 2?

Answer HARTER:  Correct.  The second variance which I would like to request is for a variance to build a detached garage on the property.  That is supposed to be part of the docket as well.

Remarks RAYMER:  We do not have record of that variance request.

Remarks HARTER:  It was supposed to be.

Question RAYMER:  You would like to replace the current garage on the property?

Answer HARTER:  Correct.  I would like to replace it and elevate it.  I have had some runoff issues in the past.  Can I get a building permit to replace that garage without a variance?

Question Raymer:  Would you build in the same spot?

Answer HARTER:  Yes.

Question Raymer:  What size is it?

Answer HARTER:  I would like to go 20’ x 20’.

Question RAYMER:  Would he need a variance then?

Answer WEIBEL:  When Mr. Harter was in to see us, we talked about the existing garage having a property line run through it which could have cause some problems.  If he can meet the required sideyard, rearyard and front setbacks, I don’t think a variance would be required.  The lot is 80 feet deep and the required rearyard is 3 feet, so there is a 27’ building window there.

Remarks RAYMER:  He would be allowed a 500 square foot garage with the lot size he is proposing.

Opposition:  None

Correspondence:  None

Question RAYMER:  Have you met with the township?

Answer HARTER:  Yes, I met with the zoning commission and they did not have any objections.

Question RAYMER:  You have not been to the Town Board, though?

Answer HARTER:  That meeting is coming up. 

Motion by Eilertson/Houlihan to approve.  Motion passes unanimously.

Motion by Houlihan/Eilertson to adjourn meeting at 8:04 pm.  Motion passes unanimously. 

Meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m.

Chad VandenLangenberg, Recorder