010-118-00-1200-VAR-2012-016 Office af
Sawyer County Zoning and Conservation Administration
10610 Main Street Suite 49
Hayward,Wisconsin 54843
(715)634-8288
November 28,2012
Patricia A.and Mazk J.Pevan ''��!i 1v�
15109 Chestnut Circle �
Burnsville,MN 55306
Re:Variance Application 12-016
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday,November 27,2012 the Sawyer County Zoning Board of
Appeals denied your application for variance for the following proposai:
Mark Pevan et ux.Lots 12&13 Edgewater Beach Subdivision.526,T 41N,R 8W;Pazcel-
6.12&13.Property located at#12752W South Shore Road.Doc#284683.Property has 0.74
acres.Property is zoned ResidentiaURecreational One.Application is for the construction of a 4'
x 28'addition onto an e�cisting nonconforming structure located 28.5'to the ordinary high water
mark of Round Lake.Variance 01-023 was approved for two 8'x 10'additions and a 2'x 28'
addition on the back.The proposed addition for this variance at the closest point would be 66.5'
from the ordinary high water mazk.Application is also to replace and increase the pitch of e�cisting
roof closer than 35'to the ordinary high water mark.Variance is requested as Section 14.1,
Sawyer County Zoning Shoreland-Wetland Protection Ordinance,would require the prior grant-
ing of a variance for any structure located closer than 75'to the ordinary high water mark and
Section 15.10 would require the prior granting of a variance to increase the pitch of existing roof
on a structure located closer than 35'to the ordinary high water mark.The Town Boazd has ap-
proved the application with additional comments.
Findings of Fact of the Board of Appeals:It would be for the convenience of the owner;it would
be a self-created hardship.
Any person or persons jointly aggrieved by this decision of the Board of Appeals may commence
an action in the Circuit Court for Writ of Certiorari to review the legality of this decision within
30 days after the date of this notice.
Yours truly,
Cind�����
Deputy Zoning Administrator
1�R Cp�� � Ofticcof
;��� �� � �z�� Sawyer County `Lon�ng and Conservation
;"� !<: Administration
:�' =- . _. �_
���y - �--� �2— I 0610 Main Street Suite 49
���i�°�:�� Hayward, Wisconsin 54843
TeCl71>1634-8288
Pac(71i)538-32?7
URL: ]rtlp:lhs��vsa�n'crcoun(}�go��.orK
E-mail: zone.depuri�'a'.s1«ti�ercounh�w��.ore
December 19, 2012
Mark .i Pc�an
'��1�0���1
15109 Chesmut Circle
Burusvilie, MN 55306
Dear Mr. Pevan,
During last nighYs Board of Appeals meeting, the Board discussed their Ruies and By-
laws, specifically Section 10.0 - Retiling and Rehearings as well as reconsiderations of
applications. It was the consensus of the [3oard not to make any changes to the
reconsideration/refillingJrehearing process and stated that every decision they make is
appealable.
After reading your letter dated December 11, 2012 for the possible reconsideration, they
believe that there was no new information provided to them that warranted the rehearing
of your application and that they had enough information at the time of your hearing to
make the decision that they did.
As you are aware, the '+0 day filing period for an appeal has expired and therefore the one
year retilling rule will apply.
If you have any questions, please feel tree to contact me.
Sincerely,
Cindy Yackley
Deputy Zoning Administrator
Copy A1 Gerber, Chairman ofthe Sawyer County 6oard of Appeals
Town of Hayward
Cotmty of Sawyer
September 18, 2012
Date
SUBJECT: Variance Application 12-016 O �
To: Sawyer County Zoning & Conservation Administration , S ��
10610 Main Street Suite 49 EP 2 7 2Q92 ;� j
Hayward, Wisconsin 54843-0668 SqyrYE� r�.�
ION��� ApM�� �NTY
Owner: Mark & Patricia Pevan (952) 435-5663 SrRAr10N
Address: 15109 Chestnut Circle Burnsville, MN 55306
Anticipated time of presentation (minutes) to the Board of Appeals (Circle one) : <15/ 15-30 />30
Property description: Parcel in S 26, T 41N, R 08W
010-118-00-1200, Parcel -6.12& 13
Edgewater Beach, Lot 12 & 13
#12752W South Shore Road
Volume and page no. of deed: WD #284683
Transfer on Death Deed #379088
Acreage and lot size: 0.74 acres
Zone district: Residential/Recreational One (RR-1)
Application is for: The construction of a 4' x 28' addition onto an existing nonconforming structure located
28.5' to the ordinary high water mark (OWHM) of Round Lake. Variance 01-023 was approved for two 8' x 10'
additions and a 2' x 28' addition on the back. The proposed addition for this variance at the closest point would
be 66.5' from the (OHWM). Application is also to replace and increase pitch of existing roof closer than 35' to
the (OHWM)
Variance is requested as: Section 14.1, Sawyer County Zoning Shoreland-Wetland Protection Ordinance,
would require the prior granting of a variance for any structure located closer than 75' to the OHWM. Section
15.10, Sawyer County Zoning Shoreland-Wetland Protection Ordinance would require the prior granting of a
variance to increase pitch of existing roof to a structure located closer tha ' o an (OHWM).
�
PH : 27 Nov 2012 '
6 : 00 PM
Name and address of agent: Signatures of property owner and agent andlor
purchaser. The above hereby make application for a
variance. The above certify that the listed information
and intentions are true and correct. The above
person/s/ hereby give permission for access to the
property for onsite inspections.
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
SAWYER COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
(To be completed by applicant)
Completed by M!� i� �� ._J , ��V��
(First Name) (MI) (Last Name)
The purpose of this form is to provide you with information that pertains to the granting
of"azea/dimensional"variances and to assist you in preparing for your presentation
before the Sawyer County Boazd of Appeals.Use additionai paper for responses if
required. Example responses aze not related to any variance ever reviewed by the Board
of Appeals. This form will become a part of your applicafion packet and is to be
returned to the Zoning Department by the variance application deadline.
Part 1. Applicant supplied Information.
Current use of vour propertv&improvements-(e.g.,"Property contains a residential
home with a detached garage.").
�G�� �-��.Q
Describe the variance requested—(e.g.,"Add a 15'x 20'addition to the side of the
home.").
Describe the effects on the propertv if the variance is not eranted—(e.g.,"The addition
is required for yeaz-round living and protecting property value.").
Describe alternatives to the requested variance such as other locations,desiQns and
construction techniques Attach a site map showing alternatives that vou considered in
each category below.
a) Altematives you considered that will comply with existing standazds. If
you find such an alternative,you may move forward with this option
with a regular permit. If you rejected compliant alternatives,provide the
reasons that you rejected them.
(e.g.,"Space is not available to expand in any other direction or location.
House is too close to the side lot lines and the lake."
2) No Harm to Public Interests.
A variance may not be granted which results in hann to public interests. In
applying this test, the Board of Appeals must consider impacts of your
proposal and the cumulative impacts of similaz projects on the interests of the
neighbors and the entire community. Some, but not necessarily all of these
considerations are: (1) Public health, safety and welfaze, (2) water quality, (3)
fish and wildlife habitat, (4)natural scenic beauty, (5) minimization of
property damages and (6) achievement of eventual compliance for
nonconforming uses, structures and lots.
Explain how the granting of this variance would not harm the public interests
or how it may even enhance the public interests.
3) Unnecess Hardshi .
An applicant may not claim hardship because of conditions which are self-
imposed or created by a prior owner (for example, excavating a pond on a
vacant lot and then arguing that there is no suitable location for a home.).
Courts have also determined that economic or financial hardship does not
justify a variance. When determining whether unnecessary hardship exists,
the property as a whole is considered rather than just a portion of the pazcel.
You are applying for an "area variance.' An area variance relaxes a
dimensional standard such as a setback, frontage, lot azea, or height. For an
azea variance, unnecessary hardshio exists when compliance would
unreasonablv orevent the owner from using the propertv for a permitted
puroose or would render conformitv with such restrictions unnecessarilv
burdensome. The importance of the public purposes of the ordinance, the
degree to which the restriction supports those purposes and the extent of the
relaxation of the restriction are weighs against the limitations full compliance
would impose on use of the property.
Is unnecessary hardship present?
�Yes. Describe.
❑ No. A variance cannot be granted.
b) Altematives you considered that require a lesser variance and reasons
you rejected them.
(e.g., "Addition is the minimum size that is required.").
Describe the impact on vour proroertv and adjacent prooerties if the variance is rg anted.
(e.g., "Erosion during construction—wiil be controlled with silt fencing.
After construction there will be a greater impervious surface area.
Gutters and downspouts will be used to divert water away from other properties
and the lake. Shoreline buffer zone will be planted with native vegetation, trees
and shrubs.").
Part 2: Three-Step Test.
To qualify for your requested variance, you must demonsh�ate that your property meets
the following three requirements. This is known as the `Yhree-step test."
1) Unique Propertv Limitations.
Unique physical limitations of the property such as steep slopes or wetlands
that are not generaily shared by other properties must prevent compliance with
ordinance requirements. The circumstances of an applicant(growing family,
need for a larger garage etc.) aze not a factor in deciding variances. Nearby
ordinance violations, prior variances or lack of objections from neighbors or
the Town Board do not provide a basis for granting a variance.
Do unique physical chazacteristics of your property prevent compliance with
the ordinance?
�/] Yes. Where are they located on your property? Please show the
boundaries of these features on the site map that you used to describe
alternatives considered.
(e.g., "There is a wetland azea that extends azound one side of the house
and also behind the house.").
❑No. A variance cannot be granted.
Part 1 September 25,2012
Current use:
The cabin is 60+years old and needs repair of structural components and moisture mitigation to
prevent molding. We have had a plan completed by Vortanz Lumber that recommended the
4 foot addition onto the existing variance for adding a 2""door on the backside away from the
lake for a new entrance and hallway. We also want to maintain the natural conditions of
the lot without the loss of many trees and ground cover. For the 12 years that we have had
privilege of owning this property we have kept it pristine in its natural surroundings and do not
want to change this status.
Requested variance:
The variance is to add an additional 4 feet on the existing variance in order to provide a door
entrence and on the backside away from the lakeside and enlarge the bathroom to
accommodate a more accessible bathroom and install a tub. We would also create a level
floor in the cabin,add an inside water heater for the cabin. There would be vapor barriers
and insulation to alleviate the moisture and molding problems. We are slab on grede and
cannot put in a crewl space for a utility room.
Effects on not granting variance:
The effects of not granting the variance would be the elimination of another door for
emergencies,maintaining the outside attachment for the water heater and water source,and
possible future changes to the natural surroundings by relocation of cabin.
Alternatives:
A. Alternatives to the Variance would result in cutting trees and changing the natural
landscape to accommodate a new house at the 75 foot requirement. It would
also require relocation of the septic system
B. By not adding the 4 feet to the addition would not provide enough floor space to
add an additional exit door from the road side for safety.
Impact on property if variance granted:
The impact of a larger impervious surface would be extremely minimal to all surrounding
properties. The large trees would remain and any run off would flow away from the lake
towards the backside and the natural surrounding on both sides of the cabin.
Part 2:
1. We are trying to add safety and alleviate heath concerns with the change in the
structure. In addition,the overoll impact of any changes to the structure would
enhance the appearance of the shoreline and maintain the naturel beauty of the
landscape.
2. The public interest would not be harmed with adding on to the existing structure on
the backside. It would leave the natural setting with the large mature white pines
and native plants by not having to build at the 75 foot setback that would require
removing old growth pines and oak trees. It would also require relocation of
the existing septic system.
3. The current structure is 60+years old and needs to be remodeled and repaired. I
am trying to address health concerns and safety. I do not want to completely
tear down this cabin, but expand it away from the lake without destroying any
natural surroundings. This is the beauty of lake,the shoreline and the pristine
woods on 3/4 quarters of my entire lot.
Thanks you for your considerations
Mark Pevan
Sawyer County Zoning Administration r O
o �Inspection Report � �,
.,
,-.
� �
N `�
R° �"��7
Owner(s) Mark J. and Patricia A. Pevan (952) 435-5663 W C
Address 15109 Chestnut Circle Burnsville, MN 55306 z
Agent/Purchaser �
Address � �
�
Bldr/Piber/CST � �
..
b
Address y
�
n
Inspection � Private ❑ Public Violation ❑ Zoning ❑ Sanitation �
� Dwelling ❑ Mobile Home ❑ Commercial ❑ Garage � Addition
� Setback - Lake � Setback - Road Setback - Lot Line �
❑ ❑ Soils Verification a.
� Variance ReQuired for replacement of roof and expansion inside 75' �
�. y
�, o
WD# 284683 RR- t 0.74 acres # 12752W South Shore Road � �
� o
`_ d �
N _____ Ra,� ��,� �-- � �
._ �--- - � �
� � �
i Cd
� C�7
� a�.s � a
;� e�. �
a� �t3 �� � , a��¢�
�
� �79, _� P�L �� � Q � `�e�„ p` �� ���--
+o P�L �� pI�'5��� � C ` ��� �� °� p o
G� ,�� S� � � ��eu� �
f at � C�'� ` � o
! � � r.
�a �
j � �
�,'� n� -��� /.�pt�L�� , `'� - - - 66.5 .�
� 1 �
�_�:ti� Sr� II v�.l �� o
� "
I
�' n �` c�'� - � �� �� — �8- - - � o
0o I
�` ^�' �j;A., 1 � � � � �-; �� o �.
�'��' � � S �� ' � �
• � �
,� �
��� �05�' � ��c � x .� vr,i,No.nt�e- 1'e� �' o
� °'` . O 0 . ��� �"''�- �� �' x �8� � �' �' � �,� (
� � ` ��ti U
i��� � 7S � I �
va.� ;a.n ce� ►� �l i re-d
k �
a`�,,,�,-e.�" �� 5�'`D '��I � `J a � fe-P �aC e�� o
`�- � � r , �c�s� o � P
�b �e �� , �k�``' �
�nS ► �,u y
s �,
b �
� z
�
�
� , �
3� �
�
�� z
u' g°�'`� N
wg = �
�
� S�='`' �c� # I �7 �a`' vJ � �
Discussed with Mark Pevan & Jay Kozlowski
Date & Time 09/26/12 1 :00PM
Signature of Inspector
Cindy Yackley
From: Dale Olson<conservation@sawyercountygov.org>
Sent: Wednesday,November 28,2012 10:18 AM
To: mpevan@aol.com
Cc: 'Cindy Yackley'
Subject: Variance
Dear Mr.Pevan,
I will try to outline some options for your variance that was denied at last nights meeting.
1)As we discussed,the next step for an appeal is to the circuit court. This allows a judge to correct any manifest errors
made by the committee and allows for new testimony. You would need to file within the timeframe as stated at the
beginning of the hearing last night which is 30 days from the decision. Your attorney can guide you through the process.
2)The current variance(01-023)allows for the"squaring"of the present building and a new roof. The portion that was
denied last night was for the 4'x28'addition. This can still be completed as there was no sunset date given.
3)As Mr.Asp from the Board suggested,the possibility of moving the structure off ifs current slab and placing it in a
conforming area is a possibility. I understand your desire for not wanting to remove trees,move the septic tank,etc.,but
the limitations on conforming dwellings are far less.
4)if you would like to re-apply,there is a one year waiting period. There has been an instance in which the Board heard
new testimony that was unavailable at the time of the hearing. If this were the case,a letter can be sent to the Board
through our Department stating what that testimony is could be written and the Board Chair would approve or disapprove
of a reconsideration. This would also need to be done within 30 days.
If you have any other questions,please contact me.
Dale Olson
Administrator
1
T0: Alan Gerber-Chairman December 11, 2012
Sawyer County Zoning Board of Appeals
I am extremely disappointed with the Board's denial of my requested variance. I was sure
that I gave a clear and valid presentation why I requested the additional four feet to my cabin.
After reviewing the discussion during the meeting, I would like to restate two items that were
mentioned in error I believe.
1. The existing variance (2001) should not have been used in the calculation of the
percentage of the increase. I believe the number used was a 42% increase in the size
of the cabin. The variance requested was 4' x 28' on the backside away from the lake.
This represents a 12.6% increase to the estimated remodel.
2. Mr. Asp brought up about the roof rebuilding and included the existing variance (2001)
into the proceedings. He also mentioned that it was too old a structure and should
not be remodeled. I believe in bringing up this existing variance, he confused the
issue of this variance aqplication which was to add 4 feet on the backside of the cabin.
He also stated that I could move the existing cabin and turn it at the 75 foot mark to a
conforming location if I wanted to preserve the structure. However,this would also
require tree removal and existing septic tank removal.
I am very confused, on how the board would validate the destruction of 75+year growth
pine trees and oak trees in order to not grant a 4 foot variance away from the lake. It
would not be visible from the road or the lake. All my neighbors agree with this
approach rather than destroy the pristine conditions of the property in its natural state
from the signed approvals sent back to the zoning office. This variance was also approved
by the Town of Hayward.
It is my understanding that the board is to represent the best interest of the county, its
citizens, and its land use. It must make a fair and impartial decision based on what is in
the best interest for all parties. I am not sure this was done and I am sure my neighbors
would agree. The impact for my property would be to capture the 4 feet behind the
cabin with minimal amount of disturbance to present conditions. This would not alter
99.006%of my property and the .004%would not be noticed on the landside area of the
property.
The"Findings of Fact of the Board of Appeals letter"stated the denial was a self created
hardship and would be for the convenience of the Owner. As I stated to the board,this
cabin needs to be updated. It was built in the 50's and I want to use it for another 30
years by changing elements inside that need to be addressed. The cabin is built on a
slab and cannot have a crawl space due to the high water table. We therefore must add a
utility room inside the area to house a natural gas furnace,relocate the water heater,and
relocate the water pressure tank inside the footprint. I do not agree the variance as a self
created hardship,but a necessary remodel to bring it up to current standards regarding
health and safety.
I request that you review your decision based on the true purpose of the variance.
Respectfully Yours.
i
i— �
�/� � i -� /
�� ��'�-✓�',�'
Mark Pevan
(� -„!'�t;^s ,�,x.,
,�='��, °.. -7
Dear Cindy, i �
�
Deputy Zoning Administrator f � �EC � 3 z��2
SAWY�R �,, . �.. � .
IONING ADiVlli�;':a;iinri0;�
Thank you for all your help in getting me the zoning information and addresses. I have included my
response to the Zoning board concerning their no vote on the variance. Please give to Mr. Gerber
and the Board.
Thanks again for all you help.
���
Mark Pevan
� � �.
� � �
2�i •-�
�
�
i��c�, 7�ie,ti,�,�
i
i�
i
/
, I S- 13os5
i �
i �;aNie
//
i
✓
/ '
i
2a
'� t� !
4.�
9 J` /�
.� Q ��� �
v. S
�0'`�.� G s /.
�' �?6 li� � ey
1 ;�
� Ph^h t� Y 5 /i
I�
�, �t r S
. �� � i
�,` `/. S � � /
�.�T��,,,i� CS f� ^'s
408 `� 5 � .
��` 54U9 5410 � �-...—
♦ °�'-� o-nn-is s.� �^�
� � 0�W
• Z
r Z
r
m � i 63
^'+.. _
-�"�— �•.� �r � , ' �—�-�.�`.� 66
' � f�
— "73on 7tio„,a5 N. Fo55 So�� z�. ��,st r�us�" ,= ssf
� 6a ' ���
�,
;
_ -. .. �..
� _ . _
GRAPHIC SCALE
fl 2�� 400 80fl
I
_ .y..
.;.�F � ti �9 ' i E �' � ��r.�,.
.. r��` �.,. , i. .
.�e� ..:..r�� ����}', ' '�I ,,� +,t •.�'� � !'k''
,��� , .. '� 4 �
„� ` �
�{� � i� !
�� .3 �� � I � � .
��
. �. o �' �i:R
� �1 ���.
� . � �
' _'�.;��.�"'�:..�y'�'.����, •� '"`��i }Sfi � } ..�i,
� ' F� ?�, f-�,'� 5' �� �.G
R �'; } �!'+`�
j ;m :i� rr•;! : __ I fi�
� .• �� � ��� � � � �
� �
:_:. . .. � . I
� , .� +� � ._ _'_ _
�',�
� y
�J pWWW uu4uu
��� 7 �4::•� . � � x �
� � � � `�
� ,�'q,F �� � .,.. \ ��v�' C��`�:�x
,
.�w.s�.�:� ' S. '�� . �pM'^svvM+i�`, � �i
,. .
. �a
,i
..
• � ___ ._.�.�_. _ �•• , ��:, a`� ;�` `_ � , ,
+ �' -- .e .ie^4'1 . . . . , . . .. _.�. •.�.;..,
r� _ .. . .. -i
i
� i ..
��.{ � �a �y. , �e .��'� ! ..�
f � �
r i ���!r,;�'M' �. �`{y
u � �
�� +Mr.
� r � '-'
�
Y � 3
� '� ` � , ��a..t� i��� �
� < � �' �„
. �
., • 1�, > y,,� >
y 4. j � .
i } 7� �j... ,' \�5�t� 4�� �r.l 1' { I te
f� { i . ��':. lM ��'�1�1 t '. �
� � � � _. .,�n . ��a � ti � �. ,
�� � 3+t �:� �: _
. �
� , � .. �, , ��:� �-� - —
, . �" �� ���y Y. .'.� �. .
' , � F�� iiiiiiitii;,{
.
� �
� �S - ,� ;t:�� a
� * .
;'
.1� . .1#"..
� .�:
i: j ' • � ,
,r. � w
lliM�fF.loi��,�.y,��,, ,� • ��
� � +, � s
i .. •i��b�� .�� �� - .,." i �.� l' , kA'
� � ��. � �t . i . ��� � ��a4• ?. . . _ ' ` . dy:
f n 1� � i 4 'M�- �'
' x�. �� { �� t�.. ` ..ti .� 4 .� � � y,�'� . �`'k:.,� "� 11+�.
, S - yt �"���� � �� '_ � '.. 4'i
j � } i N i orr'.' '� .���`R '�. �� .�� r♦ ' . � 1�
�< !�.' ' � f`1'! � � '� �p `;��.'.�"" t�ka� � .
� �•�i^.r'��. µ
..+ +�;i ..ra '���fi��V r�'' �o
�� �� � � •'y`�i+��� � �� .cy `*.. �' ,��.
_ ...
�!..
i�r:»:� V , �, f � �,F +�• � ?� . r,�i�• � �' '� ,P .� �,�^ , ��
.N'� S
�.»�-� „�� TF, � � �Y'�x
�} � � ,y� �. - � D K_ 4. y �r .I
H t
t� , q.�� . . � < � . arl'}
�� y� $ �J��y • •� '� r..4F �
� �;` ` 9� � �`s '.. i���..4 -' � + � � 4t�A
. . .1� :.�a. • � i .:. _ ��'y-.. �' .��_ -.<i,t. ���s
- �,. � y �. �r � .
� � '�t �t' �`^� 'ro � .�' �- 1 �:��' , „�,,..#� .,�' '� � 'ru � �
. Y� , ;'.... 'i .9 . �aY'M 4 ..w. t , n _�
. � ,',, �,# �� � ^ S,�'{! �
�.1M j s � ;.J� � . � 4 ..
. -�" a. � r ; �' � ���r�,K� �. , �. ? �,..t�lqi.
� ,`sF � .: � "��,:� �<
-s ..;� , k � � r ,...
l �. �r, . _ �<. � ".+�'#. K &r _w�� '. �d .
� r ` l y
t�� .. . . , ^1 sK ���} �} ° ' W�
, _ .
V �. ._ .*�
_�
r.
�°-R6E+y. ��' 'J`k"'.+vy, r..+-
t �1 .A� � �- ..y4f:.�
a �� `
3 �h . ` _ . . T 4� .. �
Y �.I5 1"� . t`
V r
� �v�^��j���
�
� r
� . ... _ ..�.
Town of Hayward
County of Sawyer
September 28,2012
SUBJECT: Variance Application 12-016 �—:_;;.�' .
TO: Sawyer County Zoning Administration � s �_� �� ..,
10610 Main St.Suite 49
' �, ��� .
Hayward,Wisconsin 54843 + NOV 1 5 2012 '
;:r f 1�
! ,,..;-,,, . ,,. _
Owner: Mazk J.&Patricia A.Pevan
Address: 15109 Chestnut Circle,Burnsville MN 55306
Property Description: Lot 12& 13, Edgewater Beach,S 26,T 41N, R 8W,Parcel-612&13,#010-118-00-
1200,located at 12752W South Shore Road
Volume&Page Number of Deed:Doc#284683#379088
Acreage and Lot Size:.74 acres
Zone District:Residential/Recreational One(RR-1)
Application is for: The construction of a 4'x28' addition onto an existing nonconforming structure located
28.5'to the ordinazy high water mazk(OHWM)of Round Lake.Variance 01-023 was approved for two 8'x10'
additions and a 2'x28'addition on the back.The proposed addition for this variance at the closest point would
be 66.5' from the OHWM.Application is also to replace and increase pitch of existing roof closer than 3S to
the OHWM.
Variance is requested as: Section 14.1, Sawyer County Zoning Shoreland-Wetland Protection Ordinance,
would require the prior granting of a vaziance for any structure located closer than 75' to the OHWM. And
Section 15.10 would require the prior granting of a vaziance to increase pitch of existing roof of a structure
closer than 35'to the OHWM.
By Action of the Town Board,use is �Approved
()Tabled
() Denied
Public Heazing: 27 November 2012 ;
6:00 P.M. J � i � `
� ��/
` ' J D. o uth,Chairman
Gary Gedart
�IUI%
Harold Tiffany
Deaz Members of the Town Board:
Your Town Board decision is an integral part of the decision making process for the Sawyer
County Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals would like your cooperation in stating the
reasons or comments why you approved, denied, or tabled the request.
Please return these comments with your Town Board decision.
Re: Pevan 26-41-8
�WOV�.r� nlo;� gE DAMA�G�aL To -rkiE ��6f�tS aF �Lso2
�lloP�A�M V�A�LvFS
TWo LD n�i BF �RinE,�r�c- o�o � wtc9 �-
w�NaS� 02 St►D¢�1.,�•fl5 �bDrno.J is o,•� �,4cK
oF �uCt-u�F . �—
Dated this��of ���,��i��� , 20 ��
Bryn Hand, Clerk