The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About028-742-23-5414-INS-2001-042 � .` Sawyer County Zoning Administration r- O o � Inspection Report � • �y„a � � Owner(s) Thomas R.and Elaine E.Jorndt p'D Address 225 North Ashland Avenue Park Ridge Illinois 60068 d � � AgenUPurchaser y � � Address � w � y Bldr/Plber/CST ro ._C: Address � � h7 Inspection ❑ Private ❑ Public Violation � Zoning ❑ Sanitation �• m ❑ Dwelling ❑ Mobile Home ❑ Commercial ❑ Garage ❑ Addition m � ❑ Setback-Lake ❑ Setback-Road ❑ Setback-Lot Line ❑ Soils Verification � � Setback-Garage to Wetland(Citation fee-$335.00) �' -� 0 WD Vo1612 page 411 RR-1 Acres:4.450 #13004N East Bay Road °a � 0 � � � a � t� w � m � / � � / � � � o � �y �I�W eZ.C..iFL(. ,v� � JL 5� I III�'"d s-+a nr�� o � ,t ,� 3� nl � � � yL yC �( —--i'�' SP;�c.� � � � � � �Z� � � �t yL- � ( E44�E OV�ttr4KtL � �� N � I Y. s• � �2�� w A �/� �i � �� I zo �p. I 1 0 � 7� � � � � �� _ !L' W ( y• � / � w_ � � � � � � / W ._ � � — — ,� i To �,4sT%� /�.o.�� `� .b A W N � � z U,o��,�_ 6",�6� ��- ��y� ��. �J�.T�No �IQ� � �-,n,� 4.4g(i) ~S[7--g,qf.�S ,GiZU�-� N,4U��ABC�C�(�5 ` � � �AcJ Y�ri Cc}�,�uT�-� Zo.(��,cE 6- D/�Dl,f�4dJC�- °° o � Discussed with Steve Boss,Spider Lake Zoning Administrator � Date&Time October 22,2001 10:30 A.M. Signature ofInspector � yo�N3 Office of Sawyer County Zoning Administration � P.O.Box 676 Hayward, Wisconsin 54843 Teh (715)634-8288 Fax: (715)638-3277 URL: http://www.sawyercountygov.org E-mail: zoningsec@sawyercountygov.org November 27, 2001 James Imse 12281 N Pederson Road Hayward, WI54843 Dear Mr. Imse: Enclosed are summaries of court decisions that may have a bearing on the Jorndt issue (i.e., an erroneous permit issued by a zoning official). I am sure that the legal counsel for the Town of Spider Lake would also be able to advise the Boazd of Appeals on this matter. Sincerely, �� William A.��m��+�� Zoning Administrator ProceduralIrregulariries? One member of the Counry Zoning Committee was absent at the public hearing for a conditional use. The Committee decided the matter at its next meeting. The member who had been absent at the first meeting participated in the second meeting and voted on the conditional use. The fact that the member was absent at the first hearing did not invalidate the decision since the member had reviewed the tape of the first hearing and the documents presented at the first hearine. The second hearing was advertised as a decision meeting at which no new testunony would be taken. Nonetheless, the applicant was asked and answered a few questions. This does not constimte procedural irregulariry since nothing said by the applican[ at the meeting was material to the ultimate decision. Logsdon v. Sawyer Counri Zonine Committee, Case No. 96-1458-FT, decided December 10, 1996 (Court of Appeals, District III). Unpublished. �iistakenlv Issued Approval Does �ot Bind Local Government. Applicant obtained a vote of the Town Board approvine a billboard. The Town Buildine Inspector issued a stop work order since the size of the approved sien was twice the size allowed under the ordinance. The applicant argued [hat the vote by the Town Board to approve the permit was effectively an amendment to the size requirements. The court rejected this argument, deternuning that the proceedings of the Town Board did not include the notices and hearing required to formally amend the ordinance. The court upholds the stop work order under the established doctrine that a permit erroneously issued cannot authorize a use in violation of a zoning ordinance. Donaldson v. Town of Beloit, Case No. 95-3123. October 17, 1996 (Court of Appeals, Districc IV), linpuolished. "Bad Actor" Consideration in After-the-Fact Variance Cases. A property owner seeking an after-the-fact variance sent their builder to the Board of Adjustment. After the variance was derued, they were told by a third parry that one or more members of the Board had said privatety that the builder has a history of ignoring approved plans and seekin� after-the-fact variances and Board members wanted to teach the builder a lesson by refusing this variance. The applican[ asked permission of the Circuit Court to take testimony showina thac members of the Board were prejudiced by the earlier misconduct of the builder. The Court of Appeals rejected this request, statinQ that neither the motives nor the ethics nor the honesry of Board members can be put at issue in a certiorari appeal. Furthermore, motives are irrelevan[ �vhen the applicant has failed to meet threshold requirements for a variance. 3 The setback line from the lake was to be determined by an averaging of actual setbacks of the buildings on.either side of the vacant lot in question. The averaging was done measuring from the lakeside face of the buildings on the adjoining lots, not from the outer edge of either patios or decks extending from the main buildings. The Court of Appeals upholds Ihis measurement methodology as reasonable. Thomoson v LaCrosse Countv Board of AdiurtmPnr, Case No. 94-22g1, June 13, 1996 (Court of Appeals, District IV). Unpublished. Reliance Unon Zonin¢ IncnP�f„ Yet another Wisconsin coun case affirms che rule that erroneous pemuts or approvals by a zoning inspector do not bind the municipaliry or protect a property owner who builds in reliance upon approvals that are not legal under the ordinance. In this case, Villaee officials authorized location of a home on a riverfront lot. The DNR, as part of administerine floodplain zoning, appealed the permit to the Villaee Board of Appeals which overturned the permit. The Village then sued to demand enforcement of the Board of Appeals decision and the DNR intervened. The Court of Appeals ruled that "in light of the DNR's statewide responsibiliry and reputation, (the property owner's) decision to rely on the Village ... rather than the DNR was unreasonable." Fremont v. Mischler, Case No. 95-2292, decided November 14, 1996 (Court of Appeals, District IV). Unpublished. Is Past Precedent Bindin on a Variance Board? In a case havin� several dimensions, most of which are unique to the facts of the case, the Court of Appeals District II held that a Board of Adjustment is not bound to follow precedent of prior cases when those prior cases have somewhat different factual circumstances, or if the Board concludes that a position taken in a prior case was a mistake. According to the Court, "a zonine authori may_ correct a prior mistake." Miswald v Waukesha Co. Board of Ad's rnent, 202 Wis.2d 402, 550 N.W.Zd 434 (Court of Appeals, District II 1996). 4 as the counry Board of Adjusmzent received." Klinger, 149 Wis. 2d 838 at 841. Holding/Analysis: The Supreme Court held that the circuit court should have applied the common-law certiorari standard of review since the evidence taken by the circuit court was substantially the same as that taken by the BOA. "When, as in this case, the circuit court takes evidence that is substantially the same as that taken by the Board, deference to the Board demands that the evidentiary hearing should be treated as a nullity for purposes of determining the standard of review to be applied to the Board's decision. The legislature could not have intended to allow the circuit court to pre-emp[ the discretion of the Board by conduc[ing a duplicative evidentiary hearing. Accordingly we Conclude that the circuit court should apply the common-law ceniorari standard of review when, as in this case, [he evidence taken by the circuit court is substantially the same as that taken by the Board." Klinger, 149 Wis. 2d 838 at 845. The Supreme Court also held that, when the common-law certiorari standard of review is applied to this case, the board's decision not to grant the variance must be affirmed. Snyder v. YYaukesha County Zoning Bd., 74 Wis. 2d 468, 247 N.W.2d 98 (1976) Facu: A property owaer obtained verbal approval from a building inspecror and proceeded to build a porch onto his noaconforming residence prior ro obtaining a permi!. Afrer co¢struction, the permic was denied because the porch encroached oo the side-yard offset and violated a floor-to-lot ra[io ordinance. The owner sought a variance, claiuung that suict enforcement of the ordinance would result in practical difficulry or unnecessary hards!up. The Board of Adjusvnent denied his cariance requese. Holdine'.Analysis In re�iewing decisions that are before the court on certiorari under s. 59.99 (10), Stats. (now numbered s. 59.694 (30), Stats.),judicial reviek is limited to: "(1)v�hether the board kept «ithin iu jurisdiction; (2) whether it proceeded on a correct theor� of law; (3) whether its action was arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable and represented iu wifl and not its judgment; and (4) whether the evidence was such that it might reasonabl� make the.order or determination in question." Snyder, 74 W"is. 2d 468 at 475. [n revieuing the decisicns of a Board of Adjusunent, che Supreme Court is hesitan[ to interfere wi[h administ;ative de[ermina[ions, and accords [he decision of the B0.4 a presumpcion of correcmess and validiry. "The decision of[he board uill be arbierary or capricious if it is unreasonable or uithout ratiooa] basis. . . . the findings of the board ma} not be disturbed if am reasonable view of the eridencc sustains them. . . . The court ma} not substitute its discretlon for that committed to the board b� the le�islamre." Smder, 7» H'is. ?d 46& at 476. For a ;umman o.`other holdings in tnis decision, see "Erroneous o,- Unauehorized Ac��' in Sec[ien 14, and 'F:nancial Hardship o; Los� of Pref::" and "Utmecessan Nardsh:p' ia S:ctio� ?6. S:a'e ec rel. Broo,Ccide �. Jererson Coun.•c Bd. ofAc!iur.men:, 131 U'is. 2d IOi, 333 K �1'?d 593 ; 1986� Fz=[s: For a sur:ir.:s� a` :ce fa:n an� o�i:r holdmgs m cha casc, see "S;andm� to Apreal' in Sece:en 3. Hold:ne'Ana!�sis "In common lau ceruorari the circui[ court dces noi take ec�dence er. the ments of the case and the scope of re�ieu is hmited to ;he record presenteC [o the tribunal whose decision is being re�ieaed." B.noJaide, 131 R'is. 2d 101 a; I 19. The standard of revieu' in such cases requires [he circuit cour[ to defer to the decision of the boarJ unless che decisior. is unreasonable and a'iehout a rauonal basis. "The [est is whether reasonable minds could arrive at the same conclusion reached by the administrative [ribunaL" Brookside, 131 �'is. 2d 101 at 120. The Court concluded that `•when a circuit court is empowered under the statute pro��iding for certiorari lo take e��idence on the merits of an administrative decision but takes no such evidence, the circuit court re�iews the administrative record under traditional standards of common-law ccr[iorari." ➢rookside, 131 Wis. Zd ]O1 at 122. Srate ex reL Spinner r.Kenosha CounN Bd. ojAdjustment, 2_'3 ��'is. 2d 99, 588 N.W.2d 66_' (Ct. App. 1998j Facts: Mr. George Nrono�ski owned a 1.3 acre lot urith lake froa[aee on Lake George in the Town of Bristol, Renosha Counn. A creek also runs throuoh the lot. When the shoreland setback from both the lake and ehe creek were mcasured, it was calculared [hat Ihere were only 1879 square feet of bui]dable space on Ihe lot. In order to build a two-stor�� residence with 2�8� sq. ft. of fieing space, b1r. Wronowski sought a ��ariance from the shore]and setback for both [he Iake and the creek. The lienosha County Board ef Adjustment granted the reques[ed variance because of the "unique ropography of Wronowski's property." Ho(dine/Analvsis: "When conducting s[acutory certiorari judicial review, our s[andard of review of the circuit June 16, 2000 3_5 Page 2—Nnvember 10, 2(bl L,g, T_�;. November 10, 2(A)I -- Pagc 3 Uevelopment—Developer builds$3.3 million complex . argumcnt, nn nbsurd result wuuld :dways prevail —the more a developer wus able to spend,the more certain a court ci�.uld not arder removal if i�was alrcaJy Court orders demoli(ion because it diGnol comply wilh compreHensive plan built. "It wuuld allow developers such as this one �o build in defiance of the FLORIDA(09/26/01)—Twenty years ago, Pinecresl Lakes purchused u 500- limits;md ihen escape compliance by making the cost of correction tou high." acre purcel o(land and se�ou[to develop il in phnses. Development was gov- Pinecrest L:�kes should have wuited umil ihe finul uppeal before undertak- emed by the Martin County comprehensive plan.Phases one Ihrough nine were ing cons�niction. Pinecrest Lakes knew when it started [hal it might have lus� developed as single-(amily homes on individual lots in very low densities. in cuurt.Thc rule was Iha� "if you build it,.md a euurt later proves it inconsis- Phase 10 was n 21-acre parcel between Ihe Ph;�se One property and Jensen tenl (wi�h Ihe cumprehensive plun), il will have to eome down." As such, the Bcach Boulevard,a divided highway designuted:is"majoi'and":ineriuC'Phase demalilion wns appropriutely ordered. 10 was designated by the eomprehensive plan as medium densi�y residenli;d. Citmiorc Pine��re•.n I.�iAes lnc. r. Karen Shrdel. Caurr ofAppen(s n(Florida, wi�h a maximum o(eight uni�s per acre. Pinecresl Lakes wugh��u devclup I lG F"��rd�Die�u�irt. No. 4D99-26d 1 (200/�. uni�s with a Jcnsity of 6.5 unils per acrc. Fulluwing:i hcaring in which a mm�- br.r of residenls objecteJ, �he county cummiszion appruveJ thc revi�iun anJ .ver u/.��o: LVehon r. d0 Onk Strect 6uilding Cnrporurion. 70 F.Zd 377(/9_74). permil�ed lhe conslruciion of 19�wu-stury buildings. .cee ulso: S7. Lucie Cnu�v�• r. St. Lririr L'ilinge, 60T Sn1d /2h9(/v92). Several objec�ing residenls along wilh �he Huineowners Assuci;ition �iir Phases One through Nine sucd �hc Martin Counry Cummissiun ch;dlcnging V:viance—}�omeowner granted permit to build addition onlo house the consis�ency o(the permit with �he comprchensive plan, reyue.vting n revu- cation of the permii.The cuuNy commissiun con�7rmed its previous decisiun ��+��+8 h��nrd rejects permrt nj(er cnmple(ion !o nllow Ihe permit. WISCONSIN(OR/21/01)—The Moliturs owned u 60-(oul wide parcel uf land TTie residems sued. The court fuund �he permi� was consisient with ihc loc;ited in the Lake Home Flowa�,e suhdivision. The existino tuwn ordinance cumprehensive plan and enteredjudgment in 1.rvur o(Pinecresi Lakes. rcyuired side yards lo be u minirnum I S (eet each, with Ihe combined lulal Ins�ead oCnwailing appeal of the decision,Pinecrest Laket beg;m consiruo- cyu,yling ;it Icast 35 feet. I lnwever, the urdin:mce goveming setbncks;md per- Uun of Ihe projeci. It applicd for and received pennits for construction uf.eev- misviM1le lu� wiJ�hs was ;miendeJ alter ihe Moli�nr'. subdivision was cre:i�ed, cral buildings �nd started on each building while �he case was still in the op- ❑nd :is such, lhe subdivisiun was I:iw�idly nunconfurming. peals process. By the time the appenl was decided, Ihe cuunty had issued ecr- The Muli�urs:�pplied fora land use pennit tu build an adJi�inn:�nd:i gar.ige. �ificates of occupancy anJ rcsidents had moved into Ihe building. umu �hcir home Rec:mse she believed the house wns ti priur noncunforming The appeal, however, was no� favoraMe (or Pinecresl Lakes. 7�he appcols u.e, �he zuning technician iscueJ ihe penni�. cuurt(ound that Phase 10 was not consistent with�he comprehensive plun."Che Suun �here:ifler, Ihe Muli�ors sough� tu mnJify Iheir pennii tu enlarge Ihc cuun ordered Pinecrest Lakes to slop develuping Phase 10 and �o remuve ull addiliun un Ihc house.The new zuning ndminislrator revieweJ Ihc applicalion apartmenls through either demolitiun or relocatiun. and discuvered ihe old penni� incurreclly staled the house wilh ihe ndditiun Pinecrest Lakes appealcd Ihe demolition or4cr, arguing the destruction of inet �he IS-fout seibac4_ limi�. She al�o (umid ihe Moliiors buill the addilion five multi-family buildings would be the most radical remedy evrr mandated �wice as large as permit�ed. by a F7orida coun Cor inconsisteney with a eomprehensive plun.Pinecrest Lakex The zuning;idministr.i�ur advised ihe Molitors to removr ihe.�ddition frrnn also argued�he Jemolition would result in u $33 million loss,and such a loss ihe houxc :mJ :idd i� un tu the garage. 'I'he Moliton, uns;ui�lied wilh lhe sug- f:iruutweigheJ Ihediminulion in lhc v�Iuc o(ihe residcn�s'propeny($31H),O(N)). gcsied solution,:ipplied fur:i variance ins�cad. UECISION: Aflirmed. Tu reccive Ihe variance,Ihe roning law lhen in effect reyuireJ Ihe Muli�ors Pinecrest Lakes was t�ppropriately orJered lu Jemolish the exis�ing Phnse «��»��Ir:ue ihe dimensiunal standarJs o(the ordinance .vould result in an 10 builJings. unnecessnry harJship due to special conditions unique tu ih��property,and Ihe There was nolhing in�he law ihal said anything abou�weighing ihe amuunt variunce wus nut contr�ry lo public interest. I3ased on �hc existing variance uf losses between each o�her—$33 milliun tu$300,000. [3ecau�e of ihe gen- I:iw, the zoning board unanimously concluded enfomemen of the ordinance cr.d disparity betwcen ihc loss of developerx and ihc loss of msidents,if wcigh- . �'��uld nol have�resulted in any h.irdship.The zoning boanl , dditionally deter- ing the loss wcre reyuimd beli�re Jcmulitiun, Ihen �emoliliun wuulJ ncvcn c� mined the propose�l variunce was comrary to public interesi. urdered.Pinecrest L;ike's argumeni wuuld:illuw ihuse with financial resources 'Phe Moliturs appealed,arguing the siandard for granting a variance should �u buy their w;ry oin o( complianec with comprehen.aive pl:ms. Uuder iheir havebeen"praciicaldifficulty"insteadof"unnecessuryhardship."TheMolitors Page 4—November 10,2001 Z.6. Z.6. November 10, 2001 — Page S further contended the zoning administrator had no authority to revoke tl�e ear- activities at Ihe site endangereJ the p�blic's health,safety,and welfare and did lier building permil,and Ihe subsequent variance denial was based on "polili- nut make tl�e wisest use of lhe county's resources. cal infighling,pettiness, und oWrigh[ frnud." The Kraemer Company sued, alleging�he zoning board's decision was.u- DECISION: Affirmed. bilrary,oppressivc,and unren5onable. Il Curther asserted the mineral exvuc�ion activities predated the ordinanee :mJ therefore constituled a iionconforming The varianee was denied. ute which was exempt from the special exception permit requirement. The lerms"unnecess:uy hardship"and"pructical difficulty"had no pr:icti- The zonin}; buard cun[ended the mineral extraction activities ce.ised for n r.d di(ference between them. Moreover, to cons�iwte unnecessary h.udship, periud oCover 12 months after�he ennciment of the ordinance,and�hus losi iis Ihe hardship must be rel:ued to a uniyuc condition affecting the property. yWtus as nuncouforming use. (3ecause Ihc ordinance applied to the ncighboring propertics in thc subdivi- . Kraemer argued Ihe mining activiry hud not ce�sed for:i period exceeding sion,i�w.�s not aniyue,and[herefore could not conslitule an unnecessary hnrd- 12 months. Kracmer asscrted ihe phrase "mining activity" included not only ship. Fur�hermore, Ihere was no evidence Ihe Moli�ors' home w:�s unlivable, ��c physical separation of minerals from the earth, but also maintaining stock- unsnfe, or lhal Ii�ey eould nol make re,ison:ible use of�he property. Thus, Ihe piics, marketing and tielling�he product,:md efforls lo sell the yuarry itself,is Mulilors failed lo overcome Ihe unnecessary hardship burden. ptirt nf ongoing operaliuns. Additionnlly,where;i permi�was issued bused upon an incurrect mading ul '1'he cuurt found the commercial :ic�ivily on the site satis�led�he zoning urdi- :m urdinance by a zoning offici.d,il did not prevent�he�uwn from la�er rejec�- ��,i i�i��C ihe pro�ny withuut discon�inuance.The cuun st.ited�he"contin- in� ihc permit and cnforcing Ihe ordinnnce as wriuen. ucJ use rcvulvcd around ihe evidence iu sell ihe very pruduci lhat w.�s cxtracicd." Lastly, �he unly cvidence the Molilors provided relevant �u `poli�icnl in- The zoning bo:�rd:ippealed. �igh�ing, pettiness or outright fraud" was the new zoning administr:itor's dis- agreement with the previous zoning administratur. There was nu furthcr sup- DECISION: Reversed. purt for Ihe claim, Ihus it was dismissed. 'Phe special exceplion permil w:i.e denied. Accordingly, beeause Ihe eonsVuelion of fhe addition was a sclf-impnsed Under the Sauk County ordinance,a nonconforroing use lust its sta�us i(il hardship,�he vuriance was denied and the addition wus ordercd to bc rcmuveJ. was discontinucd for over 12 muNht. The cenlral question boile� Jown lo whether ur not"mining ne[iviiy.•had discuntinued fi�r a period o(12 mun�h.�or Ci�u�ion: Mnlitnr e Rusk County Uaard oJ Adjue�nner�(, Cour�uJ Appenls nJ more since the en.ic[ment uf lhe ordinanec. lVlscuasin, No. 00-255d(2001). Civen iC"mining aclivily" did indude marketing and selling the produc�, .crr al.eu:Snrder-r. WnuAesha Cnunty7��ning lluard�fAdjus�men�. 2�J7N.W 2d Ihere was not an appreci:ible amoun� of markeling and selling for a periuJ ul' 98(1976�. over 12 momhs. No sale o( processed granite [ook pluce belween Junc IG, I I88,and Octobcr 6, 1989, Ihc period in which Edwurd Kraemcr&Suns was see ulsn: ViNage of Wii�d Poiru v. Nalver.ron, l55 N_W.2d 654(l967). purchasing the praperty. All operatiuns cetised, and no customer orders werc placeJ or filleJ afier September 1988. �urther, �here was liqle or nu evidencc Nonconforming Use—Quarry owner altempts[o sell shuwing thero was any"yuarrying"bcing dune.During ihe relev,mt periud,the Did period ojownership(ransi(ion defeaf rmnem�jorming use s[a(u,s? gn(crc were clo�ed und lucked, Ihe drivcwtry was overgrown with wecds nnd W ISCONSIN 09/27/01 gr.iss from uun-use, and the cyuipmem wtis msly und in a s�a�e uf disrep:�ir. ( )—13sraboo Quart�ile operateJ a yuarry as a nunme- Thus, Ihe only signif icant activity�hflt occurred during the I 2 months wn.e Inllic mineral extraction si�e. In 19R6,Sauk County pussed a zuning ordin;mce gt�raboo Quartzi�e's sleps [o�oll �he business;md stockpile the grnni�c Inicr- pruhibifing mineral exhnction aclivities on properly situ.ued in agricullur.J - prc�mg thc words"mining ac�ivi�y„ in�hc zuning ordin;mcc fo indudc sclling dislricis wi�hout a special pemiiL As u preexis�ing,nonconfunning use,Uaraboo Ihc yuurry ilself�,ur stockpiling�hc product,would be:ibsurd 1�cannot rcuauu- Qunrizilc conlinucd to uperatc thc yuarry aftcr thc passagc of�hc ordin:mcc. ,�bly consti�ulc mincrnl cxtractiun ndivitics. GJwarJ Kraemer & Sons purchuted the quurzy in 19R9 nnd the buard o( �;ecause Ihe nonconfomiing use s�2�us was lusl due �u inuper.iliun, uud udju.eunent granted a fivo-year special exception permi� �o oper.ile �hc quarry. h��i�.ti� thc zoning board's dcniul of Ihc speciul permit was rcasonablc, ihc . 'I'he permit wus exlended nn addition�l two yenrs in 1994. spcci:il permit wus appropriutcly dcnietl. Kr.iemer Company pumhased the site Gom L'dward Kracmer & Sons in 1996 and submitted an;ipplice�tion for renewal of�he special excepliun permit. Cirntinn: Krnemer Cnmpo�iy LLC v. Snuk Counp�Bnard of Adjrecn��em, The board Jenied ihe permit, however, re:isoning (h.�t lhe mineral extracliun Cuurt ofAppr<�Le of Wi.srmr.rin, No. 00-2564(200/J. P,ige (,—July IQ 2001 "LB. Z.B. July 10. 3001 — Pagc 7 Steens filed an applica�ion for;i site pl�n approval for n priv.de carecr school The cummonweulth uppealed. �u tr:iin huming, horsepack, and trail ride guides. The application called for a p�CISION: Affirmed. ,choul building, 19 cabins,and a main�enance shop. Public or priva�e rcchnols '�'he IegislaWre authorized the bo:vd of supervisors tu "prescribe Ihe fine� were uutright permitted uses on I;m� zoned exclusivc farm use. Neighbors sued, and the court ruled in fuvor ol Sieens. The neighburs up- ��d penalties which may be imposed" fur an ordinance violation. Further, the pe:ded�u the Land Use I3onrd of Appeals(LUBA), which reversed ihe cuunry �<<�+'�xplici�ly s�a�ed the buard of supervisors eould delegate uuthority to i.esue cuufi. crimin.�l ci�ations. Siccns appealed. 'fhese pruvisiuns, however, merely:m�hurizeJ the bo:�rd of supervison tu dclegn�c nulhority; Ihcy diJ not in aud of ihemscives gran� :mthority tu anv llECISION: Affirmed. individu.iL Conseyuendy,�his delcg:ition uf awhuriiy, from the board of super- A vucntional school such as the one proposed wus not contempla�ed by ihe visors iu the township engineer, had to also he explici�.Y'here was no evidence zuning cude. to sugges�such.m express delegutiun of;w�hurity uccurred.Accordinglv,T.rylur It appeared ihe phrase "public or private schuol" w:is generally used tu w.0 not vested with �he tm�horiry tu issuc crimin:�l eitations. de+cribe elementary or secondary schools. After considering its tex[ and con- �esi, p:vticularly Ihe fac� �his type of use was ,m exceptiun to the gener.il re- Ci�otian: Cununomrculdr nf Pen��syl��ania r. 7'6eodnruu. Commu�nreald� yuirement thal Iand zoned exclusive farm use bc used exclusivcly for Lirm Cnur�of Pe��ns��h��iiiiu, Nu. 7190 C.D. 2000(2001). uses,ihe phrase did noi include the broud range oC vucation.d or career schools .cee nl.su:Depm��me�u c>f'Ermironmen�al Re.snur��es r. Quaker Srn�c Oi(Re fini��,�� Stecns.�sserted. Consequently, LUBA did not err in concluding the phrase "public ur pri- Co.. d53 A2d 6/d (/932). vate schaol"did not include a enrecr school such as the one proposed by Steens. see ul.vn: Crnun+ninre�ildt r. ndams, 502 A.3d l 3a5 (/9R6). Cilntinn: Wnrhurton v. Hantey Cmoity, Court nfAppeals oJ'Oregrnt, Nu. i1/13dd6(2001/. Variance—Home built before variance reyuesled ree nlso: Brenlmor v. Jack.rnn CoimN, 900 P.2d 1030(1995). OHIO (06/01/01)—Gu buught u lot in �he Deerfield Bs[ates subdivisiun .mJ hired a builder, 6tir�el,[u cunstrucf a custum-designed hume�iir him on�he lut. srr�al.cu:MrCax�Cornnumicalio�i.r 6�c. r.Murir�n Comv��, 773 P.2d 779(1989). Go's lut backed up tu Feedwire Ruad, and ihe widih of Ihe re:ir portiun of Ihe lut w.is defined by a large mound uf dirt, meusuring appruximutely nine (ee� N;nforcement—Township engineer issues criminal cita[iuns high and 20 fcet dcep,which app:ircntly scrved ns n sound barrier betwecn tl e PGNNSYLVANIA OS/39/01 ruaJ nnd �hc subdivision. ( )—Taylor was�he m:maping pnrtner of an cngi- Atler Gu had Jesigned his home to fit llir dimensiuns of ihe lot, Ihe builder necring f irm appuinled by Neshannock'I'owuship us tuwnship engineer.T,iylar s�aked uu� where Ihe huusc would sil un �he Iot in keeping wi�h all uf Ihe is�.ued a cit.iliun ag;iins�Theodoruu for viol.rtmg the s[orm wa�er m:m.igement ;i��licnble zoning reyuiremen�s. In particul.v,lhe (runl �lakes were set bacA 40 urJinance ol Ihe township. Theudurou w:is ordered Iu pay a $I,000 (ine plu� ,.,�,t,�. fect Irom the street, which was �he mininwm seiback reyuircd by the runing 'I'headurau tued, con�ending T.rylor hnJ nu aulhuri�y �o issuc Ihe ci�;iiiun. urdinnnce. "f:rylor stated he received a call Gom a tuwnship supervisor :md wus asked tu Once the stakes were xe�,huwever,Go nnd [3artel aalized Ihe parch un Ihe invesliga�e n compluint against Theodorou. back ul lhe house would be very close Io�he muund, ,md Go asked whether il Fullowing his invesligtuiun, Ttiylor sent Theudurou a leller indicating the �'�� h� p��ible la move the huuse closer tu �he street. ahcr;iliun uf a pipe was a violation uf Ihc lowuship's urdinunce.md h:id tu be I3artel upproached theSug;irereek Township 7oning Inspectur.S�oner,abuu� rurrecred withinseven days.The I.is�par�gr;iph u(Ihc Ielter s�aled the tuwnship's muving the house forwurd 10 feeL Sloner nllegedly said Ihere would be nu municipul engineer wrote it. Taylur:ilsu exploined the wwnship enginecr w;�s problem and no v:uianee needed,;md Banel finished eunsiruction of ihe huuse ❑whurized by the Secund Cluse Tuwnship Code. Addi�iunally, Ihe tuwnship ,r.,� _,,..,,� 30 feel frum the rua�. .ulicitur infomied him he had the au�hurity, in thi+pnrticular cuse, tu issue the � When Go's bank cunducled n survey u(the properry priur �o closing ihe ciluiian. Ultimately, the courl concluded Tnylor did nut have Ihe authority to luan, it discovered ihe home did not comply with se�back requiremenls. The icsue the cit:itiun. buard uf zoning :ippeals denied Ihe varinnce. ' ' Page 8 — July 10, 2001 Z.B. �, Go sued, and the court affirmed ihc decision. Go appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. � Although the variance could be denied, the board relied on the wrong stan- dard for granting a variance. Conseyuently, the decision had tu be reexamined by the lower court. Undcr state law an area variance had a different standard [han use vari- ances. The correct standard was whether a property owner seeking an area variance encountered practical difficulties in the use of his or her property, including whether the property would yield a reasonable return, the variance was substantial, [he character of[he neighborhood would change, and whether the owner's predicament could be alleviated in some other way than a vari- ance. Because the township did not make a distinction between use and area variances, the variance decision had to be remade. S�ueSt1011S? Comments? Subscription information: Citation: Co v. Su,�arcreek Customer Service Town.rhip f3oard nf Zoning (gpp) 229-2084 Appeals, Court nf Appeuls nf Ohio, �nfo@quinlan.com ��` 2nd App. Di.st., Greene Co., Edltorial questions/ No. 2000 CA 66 (2001). comments: see als�: Kisil v. Sandusky, 465 Alexander D. Rnskell, Esq. N.G.2d H48 (1984). (617) 542-0048 see also: Duncnn v. Village of aruskell@quinlan.com Middlefield, �91 N.E.2d 692 (1986). — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Zoning Biweekly Bulietin To order Zoning Biweekly Bulletin, call (800) 229-2084, or complete and return this form to Quinlan Publishing Group, 23 Drydock Ave., Boston, MA 02210-2387, or fax (800) 539-8839. $92 (plus $8.81 s&h) — 1 year (24 issues) ❑ New subscription U Payment enciosed U Renewal subscription ❑ Bill me ZONo Name Organization Address City State Zip '�') Phone Fax Email THOMAS R.JORNDT D�.��u ,1 �LZS N.ASHLANDAVE. 1'�r^� �� . PanKR�oce IL 60068 1S;i �� 1 g Zjt� �� T EL erx oN e:847-823-6536 ,�W Tv SPIDER LAKE TEL:715-4(2-4079 ��EyRp1�i�`N��{'�1��y�y �/ylIA1f1O1TIRJn November 16,2001 Town of Spider Lake Zoning Boazd of Appeals James Imse,Secretary P.O.Box 777 Hayward WI 54843 Re:Petition for Variance, 13004 N.East Bay Drive Dear Su: In connection with the Petition for Variance sent to you on November 14,we would like to have the following information included as part of our petition. As our cunent residence is located in Illinois,we request that we be provided with sufficient notice of your consideration of our petition so that we may make arrangements to attend. When the building permit for our gazage was issued in the fall of 1998,a knowledgeable and experienced zoning administrator,with full knowledge of the Township ordinances, deternuned that a building permit should be issued without requiring a vaziance to the requirement that buildings must be at least forty feet from any wetland. In view of the notice from the County that an"after-the-fact"vaziance is now required,it seems evident that such a vaziance should be granted when the Boazd takes into consideration the following factors: 1. The garage was erected by us in reliance upon a valid building permit issued by the Township. It is important to note that our garage is in excess of seventy-five feet from the adjoining shoreline ofBig Spider Lake 2. We purchased the property in question with the intention of making it our retirement home,and for a resident Gving in the Haywazd vicinity an enclosed garage is an absolute necessity. (There is no other location on our property where a gazage could be built.) Since buying the propeRy,we have made improvements to the interior of our house based upon our plans to live here on a yeaz-round basis. 3. The impact of this gazage on any adjoining wetland is negligible in that the garage was built on land which can not be considered wetland,tbe size of adjoining lowland was not reduced,and the drainage into the lowland was not affected. The Township ordinance authorizes wetland rezoning provided that the rezoning may not result in a"significant adverse impact"upon certain criteria. Although we are not requesting a rezoning at this time, we believe it is relevant to point out that our garage project has not had � impact • on those criteria, which are set forth as follows: a) Storm and flood water storage capacity; b) Maintenance of dry season stream flow, the discharge of groundwater to a wetland, the rechazge of groundwater from a wetland to another area, or the flow of groundwater through a wetland: c) Filtering or storage of sediments, nutrients, heavy metals or organic compounds that would otherwise drain into navigable waters; d) Shoreline protection against soil erosion; e) Fish spawning, breeding, nursery, feeding grounds; fl Wildlife habitat; g) Areas of special recreational, scenic or scientific interest, including scazce wetland types. 4. Not granting a vaziance and requiring removal of the garage at this point in time would cause undo hazdship on us the landowners when measured against the lack of impact on any wetlands. 5. It is unfair to any landowner to question the validity of a valid building permit three years after the fact. The fact that a pernut is a legal document giving pernussion, consent and authorization to bufld, serves to protect the Township, the County and the landowner. Your consideration and approval of a variance based on our submission would be gready appreciated. Sincerely � � �� Thomas and Elaine Jo cc: Steve Boss, Zoning Administrator, Spider Lake Eugene Krause, Chairman, Spider Lake William A. Christman, Zoning Administrator, Sawyer County Office of R Sawyer County Zoning Administration � P.O. Box 676 Hayward, Wisconsin 54843 Tel: (715) 634-8288 Fax: (715) 638-3277 URL: http://www.sawyercountygov.org E-mail: zoning.sec@sawyercountygov.org October 23, 2001 Eugene Krause Chairman, Town of Spider Lake 13144 N Landing Camp Road Hayward, WI 54843 RE: Parcel :4.8, S 23, T 42N, R 07W, #13004N East Bay Road , Owner — Thomas R. Jorndt: Violation of the Sawyer County Zoning Ordinance - Garage Constructed Closer than Forty (40) Feet to a Wetland Area Dear Mr. Krause: Earlier this month I received a complaint that a garage had been constructed on the Jorndt property and that the garage is located closer than 40' to a wetland area. The garage had been constructed with Spider Lake Land Use Permit #98-68. Yesterday I visited the property with Steve Boss, Town of Spider Lake Zoning Administrator, to verify the complaint. My observations are that the garage (eave) is as close as 3'- 4' to the adjacent wetland. Section 4.49(1) SETBACKS FROM NAVIGABLE WATER, of the Sawyer County Zoning Ordinance states: 4.49 SETBACKS FROM NAVIGABLE WATER 1) For lots that abut on navigable waters, all buildings and structures, new dwellings on vacant lots and replacement dwellings; except piers, boats hoists, boathouses, and open fences which may require a lesser setback, shall be set back a minimum of 75 feet from the ordinary highwater mark of navigable waters and wetlands adjacent to any navigable water. All setback distances are measured from the overhang or appenda�e such as a deck, horizontally to the closest point of the ordinary highwater mark. For lots that abut on nonnavigable wetlands, all buildings and structures shall be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the wetland boundary. Navi�able wetlands shall be determined by the zoning administrator. This amendment was adopted by the Sawyer County Board of Supervisors on April 15, 1997 as a part of the "lakes classification" amendments to the Ordinance. Obviously a violation of the Sawyer County Zoning Ordinance exists with this situation. I also believe that the Town of Spider Lake is required to have in effect an ordinance that is, at a minimum, as restrictive as the County's zoning ordinance. Mr. Krause, if this situation had occurred in those areas of the County where the Sawyer County Zoning Ordinance is in effect, I would typically proceed as follows. 1 . Issue a citation for the wetland setback violation and request that the Court order removal of the garage by a specific date. 2. I would also inform the property owner that,if he believed that he met the criteria for � the granting of a variance,that he would have the opportunity to make application for an"after-the-facY'variance. I believe that the Town of Spider Lake has an obligation to take action concerning this situation(i.e.,seek removalhelocation of the garage,accept an application for an"after- the-facP'variance etc.). I do not expect that the Town will do nothing. If the Town of Spider Lake should provide the Jorndt's with the opportunity to apply for a variance,both the Town of Spider Lake Board of Appeals and the Sawyer County Board of Appeals must approve the variance for it to be effective. The gazage must be removed if either body should deny the variance. Please contact me by Friday,November 23,2001 concerning the Town's intended course of action. Sincerely, (�(/.�%G�G�CC-/�::� William A.Christman Zoning Administrator cc: Thomas J.Duffy Jr.,Sa�vyer County Corporation Counsel Steve Boss,Zoning Administrator-Town of Spider Lake Thomas R.Jomdt Applica:ion No. � ✓ _ � � � TOWN OF SP.UER LAKF, Sawyer County, Wisconsin APPLICATION FOR LAND USE PERMIT The undersigned hereby makes application for a (Land Use) (Conditional Land Use) Permit for the work described and located as shown herein. The undersigned agrees that all work shall be in accordance with the requirements of� the To�.��n of Spider Lake Zoning Ordinance, the Town of Spider Lake Subdivision Control Ordinance, the Sawyer Counry Sanirary Code, and the laws and regulations of the State of Wisconsin. Owner's Name and Address Builder's Name and Address \�"` t� �.�� t� F� � �r= i � �� C�.�!_�^, �� t7 � � E� �� -- _ � �o� �� ; `�`� [ 3 353 iv j"� v < f'� �` ��- �'� -- `r\ �� v ,� � � G� , �� '� 1,�i�4%L:c./f3 k' C� �t,/� S 5 `/� `l-� --- LEGAL DESCRIPTtON: Gov't. Lot � / �' I � 1/4 ��_ 1/4 __— Sec. � Town � y-� � Range t .i �U Lot Block Subdivision Parcel No. � �� ' � —___ Zone Dist. ��Acres �~`�� CSM Vol. �.��Pg• y � � Deed Vol. Pg. _ —__ DESCRIPTION OF WORK OR USE: _�_ New Building Alteration Road or Driveway Addition Moving Landscaping & Grading _ Repairs Wrecking Sign Others (Specify) BUILDING DETAILS: Type of Construction S� C �� Use G �l'�'� C F _.__. Size _ �_ ft. wide �� long. Height __ �vZ� ft. Number of stories � Floor area � 7 sq. ft. No. dwelling units_ Cost c�o� �� OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED: Sanitary Permit Number �/� _ Date Issued by _ — Certified Soil Test Number �'� � Date _ [ssued by _ ___ Signature of Owner or Owner's Agent /� < - '�, � ACTION: �3� Permit issued by 1��— _ Date �� "��S `��0 _ Fee _ �S�._. Permit denied by Date For the followine reasons: — Applicant notified of conditions attached? Yes No Date Appeal form requested and furnished? Yes No Date _ lnspection Inspector Date Remarks An additional fee will be required for each inspection over two (2) provided with fee for permit. A complete diagram of lot a.nd building dimensions and setbacks must accompany this application on an 8 '/zxl l paper , .. , • � � c � � �� 7 F� l \ i , � C�c(J . � _ �� - _---- �_� �- _ _.--_ �- ___ I N � �W �� - a j � `�� i - ___. �� --_� I"' � �` f� �, � N _ � � I-w _ -_ / ,�_ c-_ � f- �� ___r--- ', /`� �\\ � �� I VV' , � � SP�pER 1• ia.i L AKE �� _�____ '47 �I :4.11 4.10 '4.9 '4 8 i 4.12 '4b 1 ��. � � � ` \\� � /i I i� � �. � , /i � �� .4.� �� PINERIDGE SUB. � �� ` --- i' �` �� '5.1 ��•�_-==�--___ _:�� :f.5 I� � ,, 1 . i/ i ` � . i \ �� _ ,�� ii SPIDER �� ^�-'�= �� LK. `��\ \\�v�' ��?�^ ==-'=a;` '4.13 ii :4.3 ii n .� ii '42 � � �i „ O`2 � OUTH R . SCALE: IINCH= 400 FEET FOR ASSESSMENT USE ONLY NO DRAWN BY: S.R.D DATE: I/12/81 INTENDED TO SHOW GONCLUSIV COLON (:I INDIGATES GOVT. LOT EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP OR ',� BOUNDARY LOCATIONS