PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

PUBLIC HEARING

June 30, 2008

County Board Room – Administrative Center

6:00 p.m. –  6:55 p.m.   

CALL TO ORDER

The recessed meeting and Public Hearing of the Planning, Resources and Development Committee was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Don Meyer.  Let the record show that this meeting is called in full compliance with the requirements of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.  The procedures for tonight’s meeting are explained to those gathered.  This meeting is being recorded.

ZONING PETITION NO. 1783  Donald K. and Dorie J. Earley, PO Box 2226, La Crosse WI  54602.  Petition to rezone from the Transitional Agricultural District to Agricultural District “A”, a 10.15-acre parcel in order to create two parcels each for one single family residence, on land described as:  Lot 1 of Certified Survey Map No. 97 in Volume 12.  Town of Greenfield.

Appearing in Favor:  Donald K. and Dorie J. Earley, W3209 County Rd N, Coon Valley WI  54623. 

DORIE EARLEY:  Have talked with our neighbors and with the Town of Greenfield – everything seems positive.  Neighbors Ostrem & Grabowski no objections.  When pole barn was built we just never had the zoning correctly done, not completely finished so we thought we would bring this to the Board to separate the properties at this time.  The pole barn was overbuilt, a little bit financially strapped, we would like to go from here with our original plan and build a small house.  We designed well to serve two homes.  We would have to put another septic in. 

Question BINA:  Was kinda wondering, we were out there the other day, you have your driveway in to your house now, there is a flower garden along the side – where would the other lot start?

Answer DORIE EARLEY:   To the right of the little shed. 

Question BINA:  So where would you anticipate setting the house?  Close to that end?
Answer DORIE EARLEY:  Logically it would be close to the well (points out on overhead map), whatever distance allowed from road, just a small ranch.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence:  Chad VandenLangenberg memorandum dated June 4, 2008, outlines zoning history of the parcel and variances granted for a 40-ft x 82-ft detached accessory building.  Deed restrictions for previous conditional zoning approval have not been recorded (petition 1659). 

Conditional zoning would allow only one single-family residence.  Current proposal is for two. 

No correspondence from the Town of Greenfield.

Department Recommendation:  Deny.  Not consistent with La Crosse County Comprehensive Plan.  Future land use designation of Agricultural and Rural.  The purpose of this district is to preserve agricultural land for food and fiber production; protect productive farming by preventing conflicts between incompatible uses; maintain a viable agricultural base to support agricultural processing and service industries; reduce costs of providing services to scattered non-farm uses.  The Earleys already have the ability to have one single-family home on this acreage, if they record the deed restriction of the rezoning previously approved.

Question MEYER:  For my understanding, they could build one more (residence) even though they are using the pole building for residential?
Answer BLUSKE:  Our recommendation is that they record the deed restriction which would allow them to have one, not two lots.  By allowing another residence out there it would start to provide; services would be required for other non-agricultural uses out there.  So it is inconsistent with the land use plan right now, if we would allow two.

Question RAUK:  Jeff, when will we expect to hear from the Town?

Answer BLUSKE:  Technically they have ten days after tonight’s meeting so that would take us out to next Friday (July 11, 2008).  And if we don’t hear anything we have to assume it’s a yes, the state statutes indicate that if they are not in favor they are required to give us something saying no and the reason why. 

Question RAUK:  But at this point we do not know if they’ve had this as an agenda item or considered the question?

Answer BLUSKE:  No we don’t.

Question MEYER:  Have you been to the Town of Greenfield yet?

Answer DORIE EARLEY:  Let me see if we are on their agenda.  I don’t know if I have that with me.  We talked with them.

Question HANDY:  Did the Town vote on this?

Answer DON EARLEY:  No, didn’t vote on this, sent us to the County.

Remarks DON EARLEY:  Part of the issue with this is we’ve got 10 acres in La Crosse County and 100 in Vernon.  So we’re right on the line.  None of it is really agricultural anyway.  There’s a small 4-acre parcel that’s farmed.  So are they going to use that for farming or not?  The access to our property is through the middle of this so if we ever did sell that piece we have there, the house and the land, we don’t have access into our other property.  Which with the road being the dividing point, a lot here and a lot there, a road in would allow us access to the rest of our property.  That would be the big issues for dividing this area. 

Question MEYER:  Jeff, they’re living in the pole building making it residential, is that legal to do?
Answer BLUSKE:  Well they had amended their, well let me put the zoning/occupancy permit on the screen and look at the issues here.  The original permit was issued for a detached accessory building.  I think the size on that was 40-ft x 82-ft.  That was without living quarters.  If you look down on the permit, Earley’s had to apply to the Board of Adjustment because of the building height and they were granted a variance to construct that.  Well at some point after August 23, 2005, the residence was introduced to the detached accessory building so they had come back in and indicated that they wanted to amend the original permit to allow the single family residence to be included in the detached accessory building.  Well they indicated that the use was going to change then too because the pole building is just for storage so they were going to use it for a single-family home, attach a deck to it and part of it was to be used as a garage, well that’s the new occupancy of that building now.  So a new permit was issued for that.  Well when we issued that we found out that they had not recorded the deed restriction which allowed the property to exist with one single-family residence on it.  The recording of the deed restrictions consummates the zoning.  So if they don’t record the deed restrictions it stays Exclusive Ag (agricultural) or Transitional Ag.  So that put the whole structure then in violation or our ordinance because you need 35 acres in Transitional Ag to establish a residence, all in La Crosse County.  We are indicating they can have what they have, but the two lots is in conflict with the current county plan and land use map.  They need to record the deed restriction to allow the one single family residence.  Now the statement had been made if we go back to the map that they could still sell this they could keep the ownership on this (indicates on map) because it’s not going to be used for residential, they could own this and give the person that buys this piece an easement over their ownership, to they would own the 66-ft parcel leading back here (indicates on map) so that would give them the access, so I don’t know if they’ve ever thought about building in Vernon County, that didn’t come out.

Question PEDRETTI:  They had permission to build a pole building in ’05, didn’t put the deed restriction on - did they put the house in and then come back and ask for permission so it’s an after-the-fact.

Answer BLUSKE:  It was after-the fact.

Question PEDRETTI:  Were they charged for an after-the-fact permit?
Answer BLUSKE:  Yes.

Question PEDRETTI:  So that was two years later you put the house in?
Answer DON EARLEY:  Chad had caught that, the deed restrictions had never been recorded, at that point we went forward and tried to comply with everything that we needed. 

Question PEDRETTI:  But you had the house first and then came back in?

Answer DON EARLEY:  Right.

Question BINA:  Do you consider yourself a farmer?
Answer DON EARLEY:  No.

Question BINA:  Even though you have 100-some acres.

Answer DON EARLEY:  It’s all woods.  It’s just that little 4-acre part there, which would be lot 2, is the only Ag that’s in there, it’s 4.45 acres.

Question BINA:  And you don’t have access on the other side of the wooded area then, from the bottom?

Answer DON EARLEY:  There is an access on the other side over in Vernon (County) but it’s not very good access.

Question BINA:  Is it a town road?

Answer DON EARLEY:  No, it’s an easement, and if we ever did decide to go into Vernon and build there I suppose we’d have to put a road in there and that outlot 1 would provide adequate space, on the statement if that was possible, we would put the road in at that time to meet any of the county, state or town requirements.

Question BINA:  You have the road in already?

Answer DON EARLEY:  It’s just a driveway now, but if we had to keep the driveway for access we could make that into a road.

Remarks BINA:  It’s a complicated situation, you are close to the Vernon County line and Vernon County doesn’t have any zoning at all.  You could build anywhere in your woods back there, without any problem, but you want to sell the one lot in the front. 

Question MACH:  Jeff, clear this up for me, you are saying right now the staff is recommending denial, because, this the way it is, is inconsistent with our land use plan?

Answer BLUSKE:  Correct.

Question MACH:  To make it consistent they would have to record the deed restrictions?  No?  Not right Charlie?

Answer HANDY:  They have a zoning request that was approved in 2005, as a part of that request it was approved as conditional zoning.  So it is their responsibility as the land owner to record a deed restriction that says “for one single-family home.”  That was never done.  So the rezone that was done was before the comprehensive plan was adopted.  With that zoning request they can have what they now have if they record that deed restriction.  What they want to do is two (lots) instead of 1, the existing house and a new one.  Because we adopted the comprehensive plan in March, this rezone request is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, so our staff recommendation is to deny.

Question BINA:  I do have another question, the Town of Greenfield which you live in, has not approved their comprehensive plan yet.

Answer DON EARLEY:  Correct.

Question BINA:  The only option you might have is to have the Town of Greenfield consider two lots, but then we would still have to change the county because we’ve already put a restriction on for only one lot.  Are we in violation of the comprehensive plan in the Town of Greenfield?  I didn’t look at their old plan.

Answer BLUSKE:  Our old map from the 2020 plan is still in there for the Town of Greenfield.  Until the Town is done and we adopt theirs the two are different.

Remark BINA:  If they could change their plan to fit your needs it might be a different story.       

Remark DON EARLEY:  I talked to Chad and he said across the road is already in the comprehensive as 5 acres, am I right?  I thought he said, Chad from Zoning had said that, the way he understood that was across the road from me is 5-acre lots.

Question BINA:  Your road or the county road?
Answer DON EARLEY:  County Road ‘N.’

Remarks HANDY:  There is a small colored bubble in the Greenfield plan that covers these lots that were already done, that shows that as 5-acre lots.  It’s not across the road, it’s existing land use.

Remarks EARLEY:  I’m abutting to that.

Remarks HANDY:  So it’s not new lands, it’s existing lots.

Remarks EARLEY:  I’m already in the non-conforming, I’m just asking to take the ten acres and divide it in half, that way I’ve got a road access into Vernon.  We’ve got the affidavits from the neighbors who are not opposed.

Remarks MEYER:  I’m not sure that’s what we’re looking at, looking at if it meets the comprehensive plan or not.

Motion Rauk/Pedretti to deny petition.  6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 – excused (Manthei).

ZONING PETITION NO. 1784  George H. and Marilyn M. Skilbred, W6529 Casberg Coulee Rd, Holmen WI  54636.  Petition to rezone from the Exclusive Agricultural District to Residential District “A”, a 10.51–acre parcel for continued single family residential usage on two parcels of land, one of which is subject to an existing residential home being replaced on land described as:  Part of the Fractional NE-NE of Section 5, T 17 N, R 5 W described in tax parcels 8-5-1 and 8-5-3.  Town of Holland.

Appearing in Favor:  Marilyn Skilbred, W6529 Casberg Coulee Rd, Holmen WI  54636.  What we have in mind is to replace one of the mobile homes.  There are two mobile homes, one on each lot.  Right now we wanted to replace one with a similar mobile home.  We found out it was zoned Exclusive Ag, and it’s not right for what we want to continue using it for.  Actually no one has told us why we should or shouldn’t do this, only that it complies – are there any ramifications of doing it or not doing it?

Remarks BLUSKE:  The reason we are here is that under the Exclusive Agricultural District the minimum lot size is 35 acres that you can have one house on.  There are two houses on this acreage and at some point it was divided into two lots while it was still Exclusive Agriculture.  So we found out about this when you had called and were wondering about replacing one of the homes.  I think it may have even started with the replacement of the attached garage on one of them.  We advised you that now is the time to change this because we couldn’t issue you a permit.  So when we went out there to take a look we see the existing mobile home out in front and when we went up the driveway it looks like the second house is maybe a double-wide.

Remarks SKILBRED:  It is, it’s the double-wide we will be replacing.

Question BLUSKE:  With another double-wide?
Answer SKILBRED:  Yes.

Remarks BLUSKE:  Access to second house is a question – no easement over current driveway.  Has access on Casberg Coulee Road here (indicates on map) but is actually coming up your driveway past your house and then up to this second residence.  If this parcel is sold will need to record an easement for legal access.

Remarks SKILBRED:  Yes, we bought this ten years ago, there is a culvert on Casberg Coulee Road, used to be a road up there that went to that second house but it was taken out before we bought it.  But that could be done again.

Question RAUK:  Are you replacing a building up there right now, a garage or accessory building?
Answer SKILBRED:  Yes, the smallest one, most southerly on there (refers to map).  It’s a larger replacement, it was 22-ft x 14-ft before, now it will be 22-ft x 30-ft, we’re building it as a garage.  We have a permit.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence:  Town of Holland approved on June 11, 2008 with condition that neither parcel can be further subdivided.

Department Recommendation:  Recommend Conditional Approval for the two single family homes.  This application for rezoning is consistent with the future land use classification adopted in the Future Land Use Map of the La Crosse County Comprehensive Plan.  The Land Use Classification is Agricultural and Rural.  The purpose of this district is to preserve agricultural land for food and fiber production; protect productive farming by preventing conflicts between incompatible uses; maintain a viable agricultural base to support agricultural processing and service industries; reduce costs of providing services to scattered non-farm uses.  This rezoning will not change the current land use as this rezoning will update the Zoning Class to be consistent with the existing Land Use. 

Motion Bina/Rauk to approve with conditions as recommended.

Question RAUK:  Should we include a condition to record easement for second lot?

Answer BLUSKE:  Probably should be in there.

Question BLUSKE:  Let’s ask them if they are willing to record an easement access for second lot.

Answer SKILBRED:  No objection to that.

Remark BINA:  I would include that in my motion then that an easement be established for access to the back lot. 

Reply RAUK:  I would second that.

Vote on motion:  6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 – excused (Manthei).

ZONING PETITION NO. 1785  James A. Freng, W3276 Amundson Coulee Rd, Mindoro WI  54644.  Petition to rezone from the Exclusive Agricultural District to Agricultural District “A”, a 12.55-acre parcel in order to sell the existing home and accessory buildings at W3276 Amundson Coulee Road, on land described as:  Part of the SE-NE of Section 34; and, part of the SW-NW of Section 35, T 18 N, R 6 W described as:  Beginning at the W¼ corner of said Section 35; thence N89°42’59”W 482.00’ along the south line of the SE-NE of Section 34; thence N11°09’58”E, 520.00’; thence N63°32’08”E 584.11’; thence S57°31’43”E 265.81’; thence S54°49’27”E, 303.04’, to a point on the northeasterly extension of the northwesterly line of a parcel of land described in Volume 538 of La Crosse County Records, Page 714 and 715, also being the northeasterly extension of the southeasterly line of a parcel of land described in Volume 778 of La Crosse County Records, Page 508; thence S38°50’07”W 264.23’ along the northwesterly line of the parcel described in Volume 538, Page 714 and 715 and the northeasterly extension thereof; thence continuing along said northwesterly property line, S53°26’22”W 164.28’; thence continuing along said northwesterly property line, S61°47’12”W 321.00’, to the south line of the SW-NW of Section 35; thence 89°46’40”W 33.04’ along said south line, to the point of beginning.  Town of Farmington.

Appearing in Favor:  James A. Freng, W3276 Amundson Coulee Rd, Mindoro WI  54644.  Want to sell this as a residential piece of property – as described. 

Question BINA:  Are you a farmer?  Quite a few acres.

Answer FRENG:  Not really a farmer – have 147 acres out there.

Question BLUSKE:  Any chance this could be subdivided – all pretty steep – any chance to get another road back there?

Answer FRENG:  There is a field road, but steep back there, would be only a field access.

Question PEDRETTI:  New house to be built – only one house allowed?

Answer BLUSKE:  Yes.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence:  Town of Farmington letter of June 9, 2008 – Town approved 12-acre rezone.

Department Recommendation:  Recommend Approval:  This application for rezoning is consistent with the future land use classification adopted in the Future Land Use Map of the La Crosse County Comprehensive Plan.  The Land Use Classification is Agricultural and Rural.  The purpose of this district is to preserve agricultural land for food and fiber production; protect productive farming by preventing conflicts between incompatible uses; maintain a viable agricultural base to support agricultural processing and service industries; reduce costs of providing services to scattered non-farm uses.  This rezoning will not change the current land use, as there is currently a farmstead.  In the Exclusive Ag District a farm owner has the ability to sell the farmstead with a parcel of less than five acres.  This rezoning will allow a larger parcel to be sold with the farmstead.

Motion Keil/Pedretti to approve rezone. 

Vote on motion:  6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 – excused (Manthei).

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 780  Rod Saxe, c/o Hegg Contractors Inc., W16502 Snake Coulee Rd, Blair WI  54616; acting on behalf of Gary and Pamela Schomburg, W1334 Pierce Rd, Bangor WI  54614.  Petition to remove approximately 2,500 cubic yards of borrow materials from an approximately 0.50-acre site, which site will be returned to an agricultural use where the borrow materials are used on a Wisconsin Department of Transportation bridge replacement site on State Road 162, borrow materials are on lands described as:  A half-acre site being that part of the NE-NE of Section 9, T 17 N, R 5 W lying north of Anderson Coulee Road.  Town of Burns.

Appearing in Favor:  Rod Saxe, c/o Hegg Contractors Inc., W16502 Snake Coulee Rd, Blair WI  54616.  Proposing a half-acre borrow site for two bridge projects on State Road 162.  One bridge just east of intersection with County Road EE, other one on County Road E in the Town of Burns.  This would be a temporary borrow site.  As far as timeframe we are estimating to start about mid-August with a 50-day working contract will take us to roughly October 15 so that’s our intent.  This would be a one-half acre disturbance about a 4 to 6-ft cut in that area of the field.  Will salvage the topsoil, do proper erosion control, when site complete will spread topsoil and seed, return to agriculture use.

Question BINA: Are you going to bury old concrete from the bridge in the hole then?

Answer SAXE:  Have permission from Gary Schomburg for disposal of the bridge demolition proposing to bury that in the upper or northern limits of the disturbed area in the wood line.  To address that further – one of the bridge sites has a temporary bypass roadway so there will be some waste with that which would include some sand and gravel.  It is our intent with the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) ECIP (Erosion Control Implementation Plan) form that we are submitting that would also come back here but Gary has expressed some interest in taking that back to the barnyard on his farm for some future expansion work there which he doesn’t have his proposals for all taken care of, but that’s his primary thought on where that waste might go.

Question BLUSKE:  We would need to know if that is close to any stream?

Answer SAXE:  On his home building south so I don’t think there’s any stream.  He’s talking about a free stall barn in the future.

Question MEYER:  Jeff did you check the legality of burying the concrete?

Answer BLUSKE:  Did check with DNR – couldn’t get an answer – would ask Rod if he’s checked on that?
Answer SAXE:  In process with DOT (Department of Transportation) formulating our ECIP.  As part of that we identify the waste and show the site.  There is a new gal in Madison, don’t know her name but she will have to approve that.

Question BLUSKE:  This would just be concrete?

Answer SAXE:  Correct – we call it clean concrete waste.

Question BLUSKE:  Do you have the project numbers for both bridges?

Answer SAXE:  They’re a combined contract, only one federal ID number for both.  That is:  7925-02-71.  We are sub-contracted on this project to Lunda Construction. 

Question BLUSKE:  Have you taken this to the town board yet?

Answer SAXE:  Yes, I believe it was last week – Tuesday evening – I was at the meeting, reviewed the details and was approved.

Department Recommendation:  Approve with seven conditions:  This application for conditional use is consistent with the future land use classification adopted in the Future Land Use Map of the La Crosse County Comprehensive Plan.  The Land Use Classification is Agricultural and Rural.  The purpose of this district is to preserve agricultural land for food and fiber production; protect productive farming by preventing conflicts between incompatible uses; maintain a viable agricultural base to support agricultural processing and service industries; reduce costs of providing services to scattered non-farm uses.  This rezoning will not change the current land use because the proposal is a temporary land use for borrow materials to accomplish a DOT road project and will be returned to Agricultural Land use upon completion.

Recommend the following seven conditions:

1.      This permit is granted to remove approximately 2,500 cubic yards of borrow materials from a site owned by Gary and Pamela Schomburg in the NE-NE of Section 9, T 17 N, R 5 W. 

2.      This material can only be used for two bridge replacement site projects - federal ID # 7925-02-71.

3.      The disturbed area will be approximately one-half acre in size.

4.      Permit includes reclaiming the site for agricultural purposes when finished.

5.      This permit is only valid with an approved Erosion Control. Permit and DNR Solid Waste Permit for burial of concrete demolished from bridge site (if required).

6.      Hours of operation for Hegg Contractors Inc.:  7 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday and 7 am to noon on Saturday.

7.      This permit expires October 31, 2008.

Motion Rauk/Keil to approve with seven conditions as recommended.

Vote on motion:  6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 – excused (Manthei).

Motion Rauk/Keil to adjourn.

Vote on motion:  6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 – excused (Manthei).

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

The above minutes may be approved, amended, or corrected at the next Committee meeting.

Mike Weibel, Recorder