HomeMy WebLinkAbout028-742-23-5414-VAR-2002-006 orr�e or
Sawyer County Zoning Administration
P.O.Box 67G
Hayward,Wisconsin 54843
�n s)e3a-szss
May 21,2002
Thomas R.and Elaine E.Jomdt
225 North Ashland Avenue
Park Ridge IL 60068
Dear Mr.and Mrs.Jomdt,
On May 21,2002,the Sawyer County Board of Appeals approved your application for variance
on the following described real estate to wit:
Part of Govt Lot 4,S 23,T 42N,R 7W,Parcel :4.8. Vol 612 Records Page 411.
4.45 total acres.Property is zoned Residential/Recreational One.Application is for
an after-the-fact variance for the construction of a 22'x32' detached garage at a
setback distance of 4'from a wetland area.The Town of Spider Lake Zoning board
of Appeals has approved the variance application with conditions.Variance is re-
quested as Section 4.49(1), Sawyer County Zoning Ordinance, would require a
minimum setback distance of 40'from the wetland area.
The Board of Appeals approved the application for setbacks of 4'and 3'.
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 daYe of this notice.In future correspondence,or in applying for permits,please
refer to Variance 02-006.
Yours truly,
Cindy K.Yackley
Deputy Zoning Administrator
CKY:kt
Office of
Sawyer County Zoning Administration
N.o.u�x��6
Hayward, Wisconsin 54843
��is>e3a-azsa
May 22, 2002
To: Town Clerk—Spider Lake
Re: Variance Application 02-006
Notice is hereby given that on May 21, 2002, the Sawyer County Zoning Board of
Appeals approved the following application:
Thomas R. Jorndt et ux. Part of Govt Lot 4, S 23, T 42N, R 7W, Parcel
:4.8. Vol 612 Records Page 411. 4.45 total acres. Property is zoned
Residential/Recreational One. Application is for an after-the-fact variance
for the construction of a 22'x32' detached garage at a setback distance of
4' from a wetland area. The Town of Spider Lake Zoning board of
Appeals has approved the variance application with conditions. Variance
is requested as Section 4.49(1), Sawyer County Zoning Ordinance, would
require a minimum setback distance of 40' from the wetland area.
The Board of Appeals approved the application for setbacks of 4' and 3'.
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 afrer the date of this notice.
Yours truly,
Cindy K. Yackley
Deputy Zoning Administrator
CKY:kt
Enc.
�'``'' .1
�• • �
� M A R 1 I 2002
, , �
�,�lG Ik�Ml�Tii�►Y10N
March 6, 2002
Mr. William A. Christman
Sawyer County Zoning Administrator
P.O. Box 676
Hayward, Wisconsin 54843
Dear Mr. Christman:
This letter is a follow-up to your letter to Eugene Krause, Chairman of the Town of
Spider Lake, dated October 23, 2001 . My wife and I requested and have been granted an
after-the-fact variance for our garage by the Spider Lake Township Board of Appeals.
The hearing took place at the Spider Lake Town Hall on February 21, 2002.
Since your letter stated that both the Town of Spider Lake Board of Appeals and the
Sawyer County Board of Appeals must approve the variance, please send us the
necessary forms and materials so that we can petition the Sawyer County Board for an
after-the-fact variance.
Sincerely,
����� `������ ����
.�
/
Thomas and Elaine Jorndt
225 N. Ashland Avenue
Park Ridge, Il. 60068
847-823-6536
THOMAS R.JORNDT Q��
Z�LS N.ASHLAND AV E. �krr� ��!
PnxK R�oce IL 60068 •''� �y�� 1 9 2nQ� E!�.
TELEPHON E:847-823-6536
SPIDER LAKE TEL:715-462-40�9 WYER G:il)NTY
�N�K'i ADI�NiSTRAiION
November 16,2001
Town of Spider Lake Zoning Board of Appeals
James Imse,Secretary
P.O.Box 777
Hayward WI 54843
Re:Petition for Vaziance,13004 N.East Bay Drive
Dear Sir:
In connection with the Petition for Vaziance sent to you on November 14,we would like to
have the following information included as part of our petition. As our current residence is
located in Illinois,we request that we be provided with sufficient notice of your
considera[ion 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,
determined that a building pernut 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"variance is now required,it
seems evident that such a vaziance should be granted when the Board takes into
consideration the following factors:
1. The gazage was erected by us in reliance upon a valid building pernut issued by the
Township. It is important to note that our gazage is in excess of seventy-five feet from
the adjoining shoreline of Big Spider Lake
2. We pwchased the property in question with the intention of making it our retirement
home,and for a resident living in the Hayward vicinity an enclosed gazage is an absolute
necessity. (There is no other location on our property where a garage could be built.)
Since buying the property,we have made improvements to the interior of our house
based upon our plans to live here on a year-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,the 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, wtuch aze 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 recharge of groundwater from a wetiand to another azea, or the flow
of groundwater through a wetland:
c) Filtering or storage of sediments, nutrients, heavy metals or organic compounds
that would othenvise drain into navigable waters;
d) Shoreline protection against soil erosion;
e) Fish spawming, breeding, nursery, feeding grounds;
� 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 hardship 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 pernut three yeazs
after the fact. The fact that a pemtit is a legal document giving pernussion, consent and
authorization to build, serves to protect the Township, the County and the landowner.
Your consideration and approval of a vaziance based on our submission would be greatly
appreciated.
Sincerely
� �
��
Thomas and Elaine Jo
cc: Steve Boss, Zoning Administrator, Spider Lake
Eugene Krause, Chauman, Spider Lake
William A. Christman, Zoning Administrator, Sawyer County
Office of .
Sawyer County Zoning Administration
P.O.Boz 676
Hayward, Wisconsin 54843
TeL (715)634-8288
Fax: (7l5)6383277
URL: http://www.sawyercountygov.org
E-mail: mningsec@sawyerco�ntygov.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 s[ructures, new dwellings on vacant lots and
replacement dwellings; except piers, boats hoists, boathouses, and open fe�ces which may require a ]esser
setback, shatl 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 &om the overhang or
appendage such as a deck, horizontally to the closest poi�t of the ordinary highwater mark For lots that
abat ou nonnavigable wetlands, all buildings and stroctures shall be set back a minimum of 40 feet
from the wetland boundary. Navi�able wetlands shall be determined by the zoning adminishator.
This amendment was adopted by the Sawyer County Board of Supervisors on April 15,
1997 as a part of the`9akes 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 "afrer-the-facP'variance.
I believe that the Town of Spider Lake has an obligation to take action conceming this
situation (i.e., seek removal/relocation of the garage, accept an application for an"after-
the-facY' 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 Boazd 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,
(�/iNfL/�'G L!/'iss�
William A. Christman
Zoning Administrator
cc: Thomas J. Duffy Jr., Sawyer County Corporation Counsel
Steve Boss, Zoning Administrator - Town of Spider Lake
Thomas R. Jorndt
�
Sawyer County Zoning Administration o � I
Y
�� �
Inspection Report � � �
N 1�
`� O
00
Owner(s) Thomas R. ai�d Elaine E. Jorndt �
Address 225 North Ashland Avenue Park Rid e Illinois 60068 d
a O
pgcnUNurchaser �
� � 1
Address � � �'
� � L
Bldr/Plber/CST �
�
Address ¢
m
�
Inspection ❑ Private ❑ Public � Violation � Zoning ❑ Sanitation ��
m
❑ Dwelling ❑ Mobile Home ❑ Commercial ❑ Garage ❑ Addition �
c
❑ Setback - Lake ❑ Setback - Road ❑ Setback - Lot Line ❑ Soils Verification o-
a
� Setb�cl. Garat,e to Wetland (Citation fee - $335 00) ��
� �
o'
a
WD Vol 613 a�e 411 RR-1 Acres: 4.450 #13004N East Ba Road o
�
�
�
a
�
.,
t�
�
�
�
Q
0
�
/ n r
/ � � � o_
1 �/�W r"ZI.�KL �
/ � \ W� ro
.� � l srncr IIII�Nd sTonr�� ^ �
I � �t YL 3• ul �
� � �l - - -f�• sP��.� �
� C r
/1(
� 1fL � �J�. � �� 12• ( 6+WE OI��Lht�Xt� ll �� '�' ^,
1 �t I y. �. If �Z,�� I N �
V� � � � I I 2O' � I S •� _ � �
0
� 7
� �! `�'L. � _._. ��- ' �
�L. W ( k• / a
\J � �/ � /
�
/ � N
w
r� �� � ✓
.� ��
� _r �_ �� � "j
� T ��s-r i�.ry i�,� � ,� A
/� � z
' �� �
° U�o�no,� - �a�4tz/i�6� �s4Uc> 3/y' �aw� �.t�6�Tc.4�vD �26-?� •.
c �
; �,ou y� 49(i) "��'�3r�� G/L(JYY� Nf�U��A���7�5 � � z
: ; 'S�fGJ Y�- Cp�,,vT`� Zo.t,�i�E b- 02Dl.U.4itJCE' � o
� ;
> � �
� i Discussed with Steve Boss Spider Lake 7oning Administrator
� Date & "I�ime October 22, 2001 10:30 A.M.
< Sigi�ature of I, '. � ��d'"' `� 's
.,�,
a
�.
�
v1�p��,4�.�� J4 ..� !�
�i;.�• .1r��. r.�'" �r�'.��',� ,'�.:
`t �f.4
tr • .
�rY. �,.��..
1— a'lr 1'�1 .�g� _.
T � r ' Z �
.�,�at s ' � �,r.:��,,
��
5e� �- �.�` sf� i .+� r .
�
��?� � n� ��.� ;:-
i r`�� ,'3�' .� � y.'��(�' , ,l
r �� ���'y zh y:�E"�-
� � u4 hr 1 ���t�
.} �Y�♦ \ ��� t �k•'- t��'Li�•
�i �'� V-� ,,.� Prt t ,,;�
�F�t a,��y'.' ¢ • , A�'.' �,�,�\'+C,i_,,,
d�, 1; ,���lJ�" ¢�F � � -
��y� ;n�rF€'£� �' ; " ,��.` 4�� ,
� y� �� � ��r�,,.��,. �'
J � •
:�y� �'�' ��r�� t �� `v\�
i.t�u��`�h: ��' j��� ai��, '
�
"� i.�, n;.i "�'
f`�`��'L.�'�,'.
'i � �'k`':,. �.
�. .. .
, o , _A
,�
; ' .y�- -`,,,
,� � � y�;. � �:
�Q � .. �- ;
��F � : �i� rn
Y �°' � �,
r;�
t ..,,`�'- / � �� � ' . � . T1
Ml .s��.y�'�,-,�•.
, � 4W w�:+
� �
� ,���:Y. .'1�'�� �� • .(
�f~ � �.. i.. . y r-
��� � ♦ / �
�},fiY ^ :'��.�.1�1/
�gi:-'�; � �� ,; .
�^l�� � t7�'d ��* "
? ;,' - =�t' r� .
_ >��„ .,. u�:��,,�, -
..� � L � ;
_ ,. ,
'i ' `;"""" --
e�. . . '§ .
�
.--w4�
�
�� 1
. Y !i �, . I. �.., � ��
.A ��� lT ��,1 �{ � /;+
Y �
kSi� . .���� 5 e ��� .
/� �i
i�t��.�}��`�i s F�^
�1; �' ' � k
'��y, 7 k ; ��� � , ..`� .:
+ � � A � .i 4
ip99°�{
���� - I� ��.
�` , ^
n.l . .i� � �� r���.
i�'� �r� � �..
�L ��YY .Y� � 1
•� uT) f .�/ __
Tl ,�� � • ,irtn�� �' ��';^. .;
,�t�` �
.�
� l".,i' ��; ' _
. . '�. �
y ��'4, 'r,���»���„_ -
Au '
r � � �� , Y ��, ".Ye. .. -;.
r� , � ��,
.,, - ,�
'�' � �
G , 5
�d',a� �'{';� �"; "'�
� ��=;. .
e ` ; ' t ;•��; �.�
, :y -,
s� :4 '�'���
� il i �' I
, : �. ' ,�
� ; �
.:;� •�` �w'•'�a�,...,�� -Y.+'�°'--
.I�+,�X��i�. � .
,; . �
. �.;�,:.1�,.. Pi-'_A!1.
!�:' ':��. , � . � .
> t
. �� � ..�.. . �
`� �... .. '_: . - -- -
� � � - +�M^�•'lR .+:. . .
�
F ; f � �, � .
a r,. ; a
�
- r� ':�tF- „
. � ,�:R �
�f 3
�� �� .
� -,
, � �. . , . f,
:1��. .qrr..fF - ..i�4q pF:
• ,� +. �.1 -.w
+ t � � � r . '
M"`. � `'P.` . �.
{ �
�.E � . s�� '.'x _ -
�•
;+ � 1 � .�.•'F-r��
'1 , i!:11f .�'�"'F'�'V� . ,,. , .,. ;��,..
-4^. .��`��..�pv� V ..A.�/A.
• �,��ti�
V • � 1 -Al �t':�
� ". f
�F,�� ,
� � `��� s .- - ��M�'�.Ai�"
' � st'. . y ' :'
-i.'�., r_., .a,...�. ,�•
, � � .
� � � �f
... Y � r �� ' ...
i '�. p� r . ^ �.lra n
.' ;.. ....� 'q ' .
�R"F' ��
' t'- � a t+ . ,�� ..
�'/siN• ,:�Hy. � Ai'�. �` .
� ��� .�I' JA �in�"'u
:�A� � � �- �'
_ ` �t
� ��� .
� Kt �
.� � p�: � .�.. : '
= �• ' e� ..:a � 1.
i '�4r
� �/ ;, :`a,�
' .: � �
,�
, .,. '
. �
i � ��i �
��. . _ij., �' .
? �,��:�v _ 4*
'''�.t " :ti. '� ..
.+;�_
�r
�'� ^ ,.i "r.� � f .
W►v` '
`
'.
/ � _
,� �w
� �
� .
�jyr �IIL�. e
` u
� �— �L r��.��+�7 .��- '.a.-�
_'s t
�_ �
�
��.J. �N
- - � � , _ .
.�.. y,,, � �.�- :.
-. _ %r_ t�_. . .�;� `� . . .' .
-„ . ::...,, , � �
. , �
Town of Spider Lake
County of Sawyer
4 March. 2002
Date
SUBJECT: Variance Application 02-006
To: Sawyer County Zoning Administration � � b ;E; >� �•,;r'' � ��',�.
P. O. Box 676 , ��[,:. ,< .:.�<��� �;.
Hayward, Wisconsin 54843-0668 � ��, ;;
r '4 ' �dtt<.�
Owner: Thomas R. and Elaine E. Jorndt ��""�''
�,,''� .x.�-�"''
-.�.,.a:, .:,,�e.�=x.t'�
Address: 225 North Ashland Avenue Park Ridge Illinois 60068
Property description: Parcel in part of Govt Lot 04, S 23, T 42N, R 07W
Parcel :4.8, 028-742-23-5408
#13004 N East Bay Road
Volume and page no. of deed: Volume 612 Records page 411
Acreage aud lot size: 4.450 acres
Zone district: Residential/Recreational One (RR-1)
Application is for: an after-the-fact variance for the construction of a 22' x 32' detached garage at a sethack
distance of 4' from a wetland azea. The Town of Spider Lake Zoning Board of Appeals has approved the
variance with conditions.
Variance is requested as: Section 4.49(1), Sawyer Counry Zoning Ordinance, would require a minimum
setback distance of 40' from the wetland area.
PH: 21 May 2002 � „ .,--,'
7: 00 PM �' �
� %
�
Name and address of ageot: Signatures of property owner and agent and/or
purchaser. The above hereby make application for a
variance. The above certify that the listed
information and intentions are true and correct. ��he
above person/s/ hereby give permission for access to
the property for onsite inspections.
� �:;�
. . ..�i
Memo : �=��
To: Zoning Board of Appeals members 8v alternate, Zoning Administrator, e�
Town Clerk, Sawyer County, DNR and near neighbors =�
From: James Imse, Secretary, Spider Lake Zoning Board of Appeals ;�
Re: Petition # 1-02, Jorndt ��. ;
�
Date: February 28, 2002
:�;:
Enclosed please find photocopies of the variance that was granted to Mr. .
& Mrs. Thomas Jorndt. This is an after-the-fact variance, granted on �
February 21 , 2002; for construction that was ccmpleted in 1999. The �
petitioners are aware that they must also petition for a similar variance �
from Sawyer County before this question is closed. : �
�...i,
�ti
i
. k
James Imse
PO box 777
Hayward, WI 54843
715-462-9984 or jimse@cheqnet.net .
February 28, 2002
,
. �
�
:.
_-:::�:
;.�;
. s��
� � �"sk--
"�� �
y',�„
p,.:, :
->--
1
_' i
d �
:Ft
,�C
� :.k:
f
.y..
����
'MAR a 1 29II2
�. ..�w
� Ai�IN�ISTpAiRN
;;s�
�<,; ,
x=� '
:�W �
, �� �
DECISION OF THE SPIUER LAKE TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FINDINGS OF �=ACT
Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board finds the following facts:
Case Na � r �' �
_� �
Filing Date:---��_ I >—�'�-------- p
�
Notice Dates:__�_�_2 �
Hearing Date:__2__L�_� 2_________
1. The Applicant or appellant is: _1_��"�a s $" ��a i n � �c�n��
(name and address) 1�� ��l�-�(LL�n„(�.,,.e��g�< ����_( L__���(�_�__
2. The applicant or appellant is the owner/lessee/mo►�g agee of the following described property which �
is the sub'ect of the a lication or a eal: r t f Y�_Se� 2�� Ty2��..���y_8,4�
1 PP PP -�3—f—°�-- ov•f �o
,�---- -- —
--------------------------------------�-- �--------------------------------�
located in the Town of Spider Lake, Sawyer County. The fire number address is: �3°pyN Ca,s�g�„�,�--
------------------------------------
3. The propert is resentl in use for current use v a � � �r h o �x e- �
Y P Y f ) ----�—L-------------------and has ;
been so used contin�;ously since (date)_.__L�b'O___________.
4. The applicaInt or a,pp Ilant proposes (bri/ef'�description of requ�Jst): 7�p_y_e c e�_�e _�,Z______
—�-1��_�N e _��1�-�_`��Y���2.��__�r,—C�— -`�3�—,�"G �
� �_C_ 1�6L��1J2_-�1�L------------- `
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- _--------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------�also attach plans).
5. The applicant or appellant requests ar� appea� of thE zoning administrator's determination and/or a '
variance under Section ��_'L`L( ___ of the'ordinanc� (attached).
6. The features or the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the
application or appeal are (refer to the standards or criteria in the ordinance): '
_ S2 ah L . �l � _�o�,��a��s S ��_����� �
----��L----�=--�- - -------------�------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------ �
------------------------------------------------------------------------- �
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------�------------------------------------------------------ �
; -------------------------------------- --------------------------------- '
;: =------------------------------------..---.--------------------------------- �
�..� _
p. 1
_ r ' .
. , •'�`,.
;;;°"
,:,�;.;
C:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW *
�;
Based on the above findings of fact the Board condudes that: '�';
'�'.
INTERPRETATION - The zoning administrator's interpretation of the zoning code(i is no a °��
correct inter,pretation `�
be au e• ihv z.�. n�anF � �ctis rc1�,•� NJ�,b_., iK�e ar� 1o�.�e ��am.nea7� ��
� �`���q_�Ya r� .1y�i�n w'a t ! , aP���P�_W�T__S. L. C:/r�ita�rc��f����wr P__ '��,.
G/$=�/ c✓P�i��M��rS �N�u. 1r.r .Z (r �N7�i�_7qy_�P C'Ji�r�dC✓t�/1r �YYOY W�PN fNBlf'��l'1�+HCt�'
7� �4�YP�fI (4flN .� ri� �:� n�'RLlnin t�. II�/nI[Y� WbS �'10 Cl+�vf✓`�plac�Q'7�—N.�c7Grf F�`1`S�f/�tyRIc✓�Yl s�Ai '��.
O( WYi"`Q�7Ct WQS pYPlCNj: ,t'��lsl.�l���h�GillndS �tSf fA0.n 4GYgf WE�f� Y7Cl ,P�`�PT J�YJQ IIOTP� ON Q N(
APPEAL - The order of the zoning administrator(is is not in excess of(lifs/her) authority ��`
�__� 2
because: -, ,� �, Y<
, s�
------°-- �1�s_ac�.=,t�^�z_2_i n-n l�'rt cl�r--£_L_- �w C��-�r n aK c p- 9'�------------ ��tf
____ _____ ____ '.,. k
__________________________________'_----_________________________________ ._-;:.t:
VARIANCE - The request for a variance(does/does not)meet all three of the following requirements:
A.Unnecessa ardship is is not) present in that'a literal enforcement"of the terms of the zoning ;,;�':
ordinance�ould ould�not)�Jeny the applicant re fonable use o the�roperty b cause:__ �
n.r �� ���, �[a r c rea rol d� fi�< `�t����— �y/-�p� �`{
let�f---ris�P-�.i'-"�°'S'" -r''--¢'ccT t,/-a.s . .?_��`7=��� �e n,.r��_yr�N.� �LE.S.�� y;'
r�Y' 1� c__ � �n a n c F 1 - , � � -� .n cc,! v e K��ess+r:T
i L-- ��--- ---_ _cT'i_i�_r_�i.l�?S�_t_`L111 r afe �.---'------ �-----� .._..,;�;7
�Julrc�(.°N56++1P. ., � �.�
B The hardship�s not) due to physical limitations of the pro�erty rather tha��he circumstances of
the/appellant because: , <�'�a y c��v e�ea� '
�¢E_,��rr361'r�,- i..rrsr� i�.._a,e+o_!� ��_r�t+t Prr` �� n P ar � 1_'L�7 o��r x,
, __T �- , -, -� � -�f�'--��- �- ;
c.ti"aa u�'1'�,s��---�_L1�_.t_l�_n�_�L��_�hp_7r_ J Ar-+='�e'-�6`�`�S-s'---------- '° '
--_a_-
_______________________________________________________________________ 'i`'.4k
C.The variance(will will not be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the .
Y ordinance b�cau e:L� 5�, r�e�� a/�,r{� ,�,� 7o a:�io�� ac�ve�se e�ecff� � �/�e vre��a �'.
j w°u ob'w'°'L!^�y-y�'7°r�/" °�Z"P—�-�Ca�e-`�� r - - =--- T s �:.
I �f__t2Y_wi0'Y"P._:1�¢!aNn.h'<cS _�_�n Wl_7[ina.__T��,'�.Cf ¢rr'evcilHtL�O ���}-Cc yJel C/ 4;;�
�o,.;Jv! �Y'�Y1ya_rF_�./_f7PrP- _�__�� _aP-�v�wt/��a.F �±'�HP�tiQ.a/L�__ni2P[f,.____�__ ?,
Y��
I
�� /
_lK r��'osRe�r' iT is -te SS�. '_.'.�i`1. o�in;.+� '{n�G� m� f�al!• ��
� . i�+t�� 4
�Jn.Y�aN�r t',ion��� �a✓'P cv � �, •
e�� n(�p.'re;� =.+.
/ / -
�w
``y
�iµ
�
`Y�`?
�;
�
p Z �:'
h.
• � _
. .,
ORDER AND � DEl [RMINATION '
On the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions of law and the record in this matter the Board ;
orders:
INTERPRETATION - The �oning administrator's interpretation of the zoning code or map is
(affirmed/modified/reversed) and the administrator is ordered to: /
��� .
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------
�
------------------------------------------------------------------------ :
i
------------------------------------------------------------------------ :
VARIANCE - The requested variance is (denied grante granted in part) subject to the following
conditions: w ; �n ;,, t➢ m�,,, f s
1 . S /� - _ / g/ � • '
L��2e._�sn P __.7�__"—?�����1�1�i_ co w���_a n c e u/i'.� � ✓'EJe H f �r�'3�✓Lc es __ `
2. ----`,---- ..
----------------------------------------------------------- � �
3. --------------------
--------------------------------------------------
,
4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- `
The zoning administrator is directed to:
a) issue a zoning pe��mit incorporating these conditions; or
b) commence an action to enforce the terms of the ordinance if the violation is not corrected by
----------------------------•� °C
c) take no action because the variance has been denied.
d) take no further action becau�se his d;eterminatio s haye een upheld. � '
, . � , . �
� other--��L'``--�^'_F_,'1=�n���_.��r�n o �� ;� P � n � rnoyc�K}-----------�
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Any privilege granted by this decision must be exercised within 6 months of the date of this decision by
obtaining the necessary building, zoning and other permits for the purposed construction. This period
will be extended if this decision is stayed by the order of any court or operation of law,
This order may be revoked by the Board after notice to the applicant and "an opportunity to be heard on
the matter if any of the conditions imposed are violated.
NOTICE OF R!GHT TO AP�EAL - A decisicn regarding a variance may be appealed by filing an action
in certiorari in the circuit court for this county within 30 days after the date of filing of the decision.
Spider Lake Township assumes no liability for and makes no warranty as to reliance on this decision if
construction is commenced prior to expiration of this 30 day period.
SPIDER LAKE TOWNSHIP ZONIN OA D OF APPEALS
- -
Signed________ ________ Attest _ac-lrtu-o _o�
--- --
Chairperson Secreta
rY
Dated: __� OC� 2 � 2 �� `
`7�_�/��------------ Filed: -----------�-------------------
p. 3
. O
I h c� �u S �- C l �t c n � �10�r► Cl t � ��-�� � _ „ _ ,
� -� ...���Z/c. . / — �,'o
a�T l�l. �-3�h �� �� � �9 ye .
��-►`�� I�tG�� � , �L �:CC C�3 � ,G`M = l00 ' @ �ouom o'� �vCpD S�L>>vG-
� ��F'7, ��5 - ��3 �
N F Cc�r v��e f U-C �v'� � . �:. , '-t a or< /
���/n � E 15�y D�/�;/E ��!eVC�'! o►^ 5 e
J. �. � � �:a.. - ---:�z ,E -� �l = �5. � '
�. , Ci
Lnf � a � -
C_ � ' .�� '
�
To�%n flt .Sp�c�er ��-ke , r3= �i%.o '
SQ v_�e r �`a. 1 �.�z
�JI�IGRAl�� 3 �' � _ „ � \ ���9ee!x�
`��S—��r�� '`C' -N � 9.,; 7-5'�
� /,S'
�cca�efl�n�� To �v�Ar rr,�r.r/ei�-Ngo2s C��_„^F a Gi_� ��= 8�.5 �
f�v,� To�a rnE, TkF �oa��p�vn aEu��dr,� , - �-_
?UYl Hc1[JS� !�G'I�?$ 'D1SCD�tI�v�EGTE1> FR0�7 � .J�� - '-� �.95 �
r1�6 rrIRIqJ �0l�JL�ND �v:�Eti Ti`t� Cprni�10� _- ...�.
�20An w1955%�,�rmNr��tlEr� �r��eo-x- �.T�",� � '' r-��far'; _ �1_.ls ;
t�nr�rEc�l 2o yep�2s x��o. , P � - � \
_` S•i• Oc<T�tT ;�± �-;_ „
r�EQE rS q Rlnc��LlAIE iU/�ll'frFXTENv� - .
rEt� LE�UGTN aGrNE PRO�ERT�1, =��1�
�5 C�E�Jk�Gf Ni6HE2 t"1�1/�N 7l�E j ,
�DGUa-R-/tl A i4-�tl b t 5 ?I�f3R�?,i-!' � �
�_P�T OdE�Q FPO/!1 'T7�+E R aR D / � �1 {���E'�
� � L t4-K�
,.vi-��c H �lUG� C�4ih,E T2DU�-N �
R16�-T 1°SEf1//1lD OU2 l��?USE. ' `�`�c i� k
� �
Tk� G-A�2f?G�E �1J�5 t3 Ui ZT o/ll � '���
�tfC_ l21 T�bE UNE�iL'Di T"Hf�� \�� � e?�J � }},�.r-rc��+
LOGUU4/1�D• / O Ln _R��� ��\ `c , 1000��o0
� • \ �
�\ EwSr- Co✓�. T('i.tl<
Tl�-7t-'- _P__O.RT lC�ll O� TH� ��'____.._._'�%L .y.P��E. ) i
_f3L_i7 I�DA� IS ST1L6 �'� T� - � � O/� r
� \
(/7_S i�,tE TDT7Rl,. ;r /�''_�� - .,l ` � /
I ' /% 'J ^ ' 1 i +�� /` 'rDY CC'. /Y��C/L�
t I/' i ` � ,
� / � � 1
I� � � rRl Db��1t�tE-_ `, 1� �I ,,
�y i �--C _ �C�:-�� +_t � ( ��
1
�= ----- y � `/ L��
` 1'� �� �= ;, {�{ i �3�}n�.iV
i + � /�� B3/a�� �
'�� _� • /I t / C/ � y/
%
, � �� t( � ;'�� � � �_� '� i
a �� r � :� � . �
/� �-�., �, , � , ',r�pta�< _T
Y � �' � �\ � � �� � � �a�n��Id
{� - � l ��
� G�;� ` ,�( ��r J;' ���_��z�,e;.
� � \�� /. �z.
— �`- '
� t `
�ji . 1 : , j'
.�`�' \�_ '' ' � ;ANDQY RAS�ft�d Al�iD SOf�
;
:'� � � � , P.O. doac 66
� � Cc�i�, W1 5452 i
�...._.ri�� �'�-'��..�,r.� � %i" � ��
,� -�- =����J ' `� (715: 798-335�5
— _ - - � � � `
, -. . - . -- � �
'�.
`� �
LAK
E z
I� �au����v� '
� '�.7 �_,.;�;:_.
�\ :4.I I '4.9 G�.�:;; .�_
. a '4.10 - �r eN�.n��r«
� :4.12 ��_ - ��_ - :4.6 '�
� � �_ _-- --�� t
'� �i�h, � ���'� P
U Q �
. � �� // �� .� � \���� �v
i � v� � ' t.
_ ___�
� J
/, _.. _. _ _ ,___„� //� � . � 4 �,
_,._� �,, � Q `�• Tf :4.4 7Nomoser�
PINERIDGE SUB. � �) � �° ��N��
��-�" ':- �-:- / ii' ���
'5.I '�;�<_.___ ---'.:..--�. ,�� :4.5 �
. � ' -- --�� I�
, . -
. ,�i� i �
.,� / �
�_ ,i � �
/r_ `� _
��\ � '�,,',� /�� �'AR����. ,
/' //�y�
\ �' �/ �\�.� � ��
�u ;' - ---=:. i� :4.3 KoFNN ;
. �� '��\ '4.13 ���
,� �A
� �� /� L
I/
�\ 2 //
�� �4•� Nor�4Qo
�' T
. ,,,,,,
�
,
SCALE: I INCH= 400 FEET FOR ASSESSMENT USE �NI.Y NO"1' 1
DRAWN B Y: S,R.D DATE : I /12/81 INTENO�� TO SHOW CONCW3IVE '
COLOdV (:) INDICATES GOVT. LOT EVIDENCE OF OWNERgHiP OR �
BOVND�IRY LOCAtIONS �
� I /� G �,/� M 2
!
� i
i �7'N15 /I?I�P NELP_5 1L�USTRpTE TflE Si2E
;
_oF �r�E LOG�ILpNfl �3EH�N� my N4USE Rg �
i
G�/Y��/�/1�1�7 TO �1C�0�S TNE ROJa7�- I
i
,
;,J
�
:1
;
�
;
�
, ;
Application No. �_� �
TOWN OF SP:DER 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 sha!; be in accordance with the requirements of the Town
of Spider Lake Zoning Ordinance, the Town of Spider Lake Subdivision Control Ordinance, the Sawyer County Sani�ary
Code, and the laws and regulations of the State of Wisconsin.
Owner's Name and Address Builder's Name and Address
���� �.r t� F t�.�� ,�c:��O� �o� � E�'��Y --
� _F�� ��+���� '�J . � 3 353 �v I"� v 2l�'!�"�` ��G'�J _
`� A� v-.� t�r_C> ; \'� � �4uJ 9 k'� Gvr'S� � `/�`l�--
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Gov't. Lot � / ✓ , � 1/4� 1/4 __ Sec. � Town �y�� Range ��
Lot Block Subdivision Parcel No. � �/ � � _—
Zone Dist. R� � Acres '�`�J CSM Vol. �Ct 1 L_Pg. `� � 1 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 Cons[ruction ST C�� Use G �/'�'��F _____.
i / �
Size �_ ft. wide `3� long. Height__ lv1 ft. Number of stories
Floor area �7 sq. ft. No. dwelling units. Cost a�o�l��
OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED:
Sanitary Permit Number �/J� _ Date Issued by _
Certified Soil Test Number �/,/ Date Issued by ___
Signature of Owner or Owner's Agent /� � ,
�
ACTION: �3�
Permit issued by !«'��- Date ����S `��g Fee _�S�_
Permit denied by Date For the following
reasons:
Applicant notified of conditions attached? Yes No Dace _
Appeal form requested and furnished? Yes No Date _
Inspection 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 and building dimensions and setbacks must accompany this application on an 8'/zxl l paper.
(
� 1��,v7F�
�
�
�
�
; �
, ��J
�
�- � ��
�~ �- ��
;
;� �
�
\.
�
--=-
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
SA��'YER CO[.Ti�1 TY BO�RD OF APPEALS
ADDITIONAL I��FORi'�1ATION
(To be completed by applicant)
Completed by T-��/i�/=i� �. �Q1F'/!i�� I
(First Name) (�1I) (Last Name)
(Attach additional pages as necessar}' ��hen ans��ering the follo��ina questions).
Y"our responses ���ill become a part of the official record of proceedinQs of the Sa��yer
County Board of Appeals. �
Read the attached `'Court Decisions Reaardina the Granting of Variances�' prior to
ans���erin� the follo«�ing questions. y
Discussion:
To qualif}� for a ��ariance, ��ou must meet all three requirements of a three-step test.
1) Strict a�lication of the dimensional req�iirements contained in the Sa«��er Countv
Zonina Ordinance ���ould result in unnecessar�� hardship. Present Il"isconsin ccrse lativ
describes hardship as being present only �t�h�n an npplicant has demonstrnted that he
or she tit ill hati�e no reasonable trse of the properh�, in the absence of a ti•ariance. If a
parcel as a ���hole (but not necessarilv each portion of the parcel) pro��ides some
reasonable use for its o«ner, then the test is not met and a �ariance cannot be aranted.
:� ��ariance cannot be aranted because of a self-imposed hardship (i.e., purchasing
proper� ��ith limitations and e�pectin`� that a ��ariance «�ould be oranted to relieve
these limitations). A �ariance also cannot be aranted, ��hen in the�absence of the
��ariance appro�al, the o��ner ���i11 suffer loss of profit or tinancial hardship. Decks
and similar minor accessor� structures are not essential to the reasonable use of
propert�� and are not eli�ible for �ariances.
2? The hardshi� must be due to unique ph�sical limitations of the prooert� �thich are not
�enerall� shared b�� otherproperties. Gro��in� families, additiorul li��in� �r_a for
Quests. the desire for a larQer garage etc., are not factors in decidina ��ariances.
3) A ��ariance ma�� not be eranted ��hich results in harm to public interests. The Sa��}�er
Count� Zonin�� Ordinance ��as adopted "for the promotion and protection of the
public health, morals, safet��, and the general ���elfare." Additionall��, the shoreland
zonin�_ pro��isions of the Ordinance, pro�ides for ���ater qualit��, «ildlife habitat.
tisheries and n�ttiral scenic beaut�� protectior. of the Co�int�'s lakes, ri�ers and
streams
-�) Other considerations:
a. Self-created hardships. A propert�� o��ner ma}� not obtain a ��ariance for a hardship
that is self-imposed. Examples incl�ide: creatin� a substandard lot ���hen the o���ner
has sold off portions that ��ould ha��e pre��ented the hardship, creatin� a land-
locked parcel b`� selling property, buildin�� durin�, the pendenc�� of an appeal �vhen
the owner does not prevail,and making improvements in violation of the
ordinance.
b. Violations bv neiehbors.In Smte v. Kenosha Counry Board ofAdjustment,the
Board of Adjustment in part based its variance on the fact that many other
neiehbors ha�e decks within the setback.The court rejected that as a legitimate
factor to use in de[ermining whether the owner had a reasonable use of her
propeRy without a deck.
c. Variances run�aith the propeRv.Variances are granted for hardship that pertains
to the conditions of the property,rather than to the person making the application.
Accordingly,variances run with the propeRy and are not terminated when the
property chanseshands.
Do you qualify for a variance based on the"reasonable use of property standard"
affirmed in thzse court decisions and the above discussion on the criteria for the eranting
of variances? Yes X or No_
If you answered `No"to the abo�e question,you do not qualifr for a�ariance.
If vou ans�cered"Yes"to thz abovz question:
�l'hen did you bzcome the o«ner of the propzr[�for«hich the requestzd variance
pertains?
5-��-- ' - �°,7
Describe�cha[�ou consider to be`'rzasonable use"of�our property.
��� gf - ' ��' :r� � c•- �� i•T - - io �
OF /Y/AK!/U!i- lT O�,'t' KC�T/f�EDiGA>i F/(�i3'I.E A/'/^� GOF' h^�-'FSiD.E.iJ�
�: i. � � ' '_L0�' >q _
l�jT,
�Describe the hardship(s)the.[e�is�s that does not no���alto���}�ou"reasonable use"
of��our propert}'.
_ , � � >> T E
� i ,;/
� � �-5 . - �� � _ •��
�c� � � � -
r,u_�,a,7 J'r��'[�z, —
Did this hardship(s)exist�chen you became th.e property�o��ner?
_ T y ' �N �� n Li'^
OG YXf� �P.�'O��,Qi�!ull/it'T,'s9r2E ��r��/1�EiPpl«9 %%�AR�D
J
/?�6% (d�i�/E/E' �K�O"PEiZT/ES.
Explain how the granting of this variance will provide you with "reasonable use"
of your propeRy.
TH.E IRAIL'T//U/r OF TN/� //J9�/A/rl/F i4l/LL A1L/lL/> U�� TO .�'/,cJi/l:tiin�
,, � � � � �� � ��
/�/'rJi/�iPP7'i0�'J O� //�ir'J�> Tf//S 'PPIJ�EX� �/ !'JS i4 ,�'ET/iE'fr✓'/F/'li
ND/?7E. %�� iS ilY�.OII/.�Ti4/�Ji TD G�II�TL- THIQT(�l/f;' m-�7�c'.d(�F_jf/i?S
� l_ � � / . [ � _
����n�T is��ir� t� �� rtiE �Tp;�/+ sNi� �1GSn��nFk'_ lAirc.
A variance will not be contrary ro the public interest because...
?- � � � � > , . ' ,� � ,
� - ,
l'A.�9S /lJr�i(,l�ti�� _ T.�fE �S/�F_ D� �ffE �j�/�Oi�IJ//lJ� (✓✓i%T[A/IiJ�
' ' `�� " /A/�a 1xfE �d,�rL�9�✓t,'�
��� �r . ri�E .���- z f>FL i�c�a a�r� ,�k�Ac,�
1�/�S /L"r�T k'ES,�lcTtt� //7� HA�f'r.�7 Tll TNC' Gl'E�7"U>'�'D Ji� TD '� T'G'Bz/G` �/UjE,C°eST.�.',
�_G�l '' ' �� � /' ////�'.�'l'f/ (9 2 G�;
Signed ��/J �� Date:
(Applicand: ,enb'0«ner)
y�t?�41��iriq f� ✓�V�n..:s � v.� f �+ � nr.� U�� m ; i �� G�b'�� � 0 ' .
`� r � ' pETiT10N FOR VARIANCE
TOWN OF SPIDER LAKE BOARD OF `APPEALS
Date filed � � I z CJ 1 (check one) � Gerieral Hearing - 5300.00 lee
0 Contesied Hearing • 5400 00 lee
NO 'rF : �LL CC��.� f_ `.: ��'Cii„ %� % /t%C"c `� Nv" i � �) /:f=: �f"�ii 'i"� L''[;'fZ P�R�I �Qlb(s� /�77D12E5S,
A IlcanUaqenl � Ownor Conlractor
N� TUm � E[ pr,vE Jo:2,�;� T Ton't g FtA�nJE JOaN�-r R +J �.u�E2 R �� Es
Addresa 22 �," N. i�s���tiN � lavE. 133�i3 N. rnv� Pu �t-yp
� 30D4 ,N �aSr` RAH DR �v� pA� u K � �� _ Sl� COO��S y
Pfiorie .�l 6 2-�o �1 q ��I- '�1) �.Z 3 - � 5 3 �� � 6 2 -�{-DO
Lgq�l descrfption of property: �RrQT D� �-OC� Er2Aln�ENt La7 -4- SGC �iO.v Z3 T4ulN5H lP -�Z i1l� 12_ TT_
�2 �r,v�-� seve�✓ u�e s� 4 S_��R��_.__ � - -- - . -- ---
Fire number�00 � N �f►5T Bx�/r1 �RtiJF_ �. Ni7%%f;;� :�,� Tax parcel number �7 -030 ��42 -0� -23-n ��-�
l
Lot area L4 dimenslons SEe TTHCN�� sq.tt. ; _ x ft..
Zon?�9 distnc-t It R _ � ---- - -- - - - - - -- - -- ----
(R� 1 , RR- 1 . RR-2. A 1 , G1 . I- 1 , F- 1 )
(�1lrrent usa b improvements_�-�L�_� Ll,/TN F} 1Tr4CHED C!»OKS -1-14P _ —
Proposed use b improvements��'QIQI�C�F Ci4 'l�' �4/Ui7 TOOLS _
Terms ol Or�+inance (Soctlon t!'s) Varianccj Requested
5ec-r� o,U ��_ ;' E r���S -- �'�1R� s€��CK FRom_�_Ev_�.v_v
Addrese each ot the folloN. . � cs �°> �'� - "or g� ant'ng ol a varlance as described on the pr<�•,��dl�,:; oa��es (-!tach additionai pages
as necessary)�
1 ) lXxiecessary hardship Is prRsenf because. . ,
A t/14t1 p S;o ►_D_�.p� LRK �_1RAlh-U� G P�/trnir ilr�aS iSii>ED THRE-E �1E/9FZS�GGl� .iJSi Pl1�DR �n Tt1E
�n�Js-TRUCT� o.v oG' ou� 6RaR 1A�3 T f' ,
S ] T Xa D L � 7' Tt ON L, O
2) Cornpilance wlth ►ho terms of tho ordinance Is provente by unlque loalures ol this property.. .�,e1FLyC�E �3�t •'�idUi.i/G! T.',t�
T/��RP �s Na �T_ti� �'���_t��_r�P�n�FR7�r.� _ 4TirlK���v/1iLN S Nr4D
T!-tl-� t 7'HF �a4Rl�'��fll1_�D_�3.�/'�LL��;RdCT,�b d� C��Nf,}LLG/ AIAG'Eb.
3) A varianca will not bo contrary Io ttio public Intores� becauso. . � �
THE St2E OFTNE �o�tS����N_L�L�OsLLt1�(1sF- r, v�.(J_��RLL _ � �2.12X1vy1i4—T�—���Q�j�
v LL� _1��_�SQ Ti-fE 1 DGt�s-Rit)b LlSGR7"� J� �1i2�c�-r [�O�s •]'rtE RD�D.
Atlsch a plat of otfier map of your site end �QS�(�, �onotructlon plens. (See other slde for exemple of a Qlte plen)
Ptiease contacl the Spider Lake Townshlp Zoning Adminislrafor ii you have any quesiions.
NotQ: Ajj..bianks must be tliled In and completed.
, �.
, T- ; �_
�,�'�; �r?��� ��r.t. � ., � i � ��� �lr1�� D a t e: I � D
(Appllcant/Agent/Owner) / ,
j
Your remlttance (fea) should be made payabie to :Town o( Spl�e Lake, end must be mailed elong with this completed Pelitio�
For Variance form. A copy of the Peillion musl also be senl lo the Zoning Adminfstrator
M811t0 Town of Spider Lake Zoning Board of Appeals
James Imse , Secretary
P . O . Box 777
Hayward , WI 54843
T a.m d 9 plda l�k e
p�xrb�r 199a
D � d ♦
I � �� r;,�< < .� L 1 .�c ;� � t �� --I —t— .� .
�- �. � _ ����� S��IE �,� _ �o'
^�T� '�l. �s!� :'-�c r ��' f=,.� �
�il r:� ^> ^�� � . T — _ �� ��3 . �M — �OU � � EO1�YY O r LvCQf� SlGf1VG
_. _ — , � � - c�_ '�c N F Ce�r v��/' U-t `�v�� � . C= % °tao�<�
4
/�nn , ,E, BAy �/?/vE E�ie�cL'! o►� 5 �
(T. �. � � ��: y, T�z, ,e � .� C► _ �S. � '
,UT � � � I �
I v l;�' `�i•�S �
� � �
r
. Oc..�: :F;�a� __ _ ; _` rj= yp.o '
�� 'r��ro ,r �iJ �v,_
- `. , a
'�� ��c�p n c env1.J
TJ 1�1 GR A/�� 3 `�����v-'",'�., _ _=�� > , �v� 9-� 7,5'� �/.$'
�I.CCQ�f�iN6�_T-OGUKiv? /h�r,iJElGf�3025 �'`�-r�� a �!_JC�.' 4Cv.J � .
��J4{�� TOL7 riIF � .T_/�(� �O!L��/-?.�UT� SEN��Jr.7� ,J a ; ' � �_ - ,
�U12 HQlJS� GU�1$ �t�,GDitli1l�GTE 1� F,2Qh7 �� - -= �. 95
7�l-I6 iy1A/r� �0l�JL,�iUb Cvf/Eti r/�E �prriiylO.rJ �.
KD�In �vp5 SrRt}i4NrEy6ta ���,eo-x- .� � �. ,_�� � r �,U fa�J _ �1- /5 e . . ...
i/YIRTE'1G� 20 (,��/4�ZS N60. � �
r�tE�2 E r s .q a�n�€��,iN� ivr����r F x r�Nn � , o u T�� - ,'± ;��. �
TEt6 L bT 4��tf P c — \ � T '
EN N F QOnERr 1, _� ��
!�i CGEF)k t-G� l-1�6ME2 I'N/�itJ -Tl-f�E ;' \
�ou��R-nln .¢Nb 1, ��o��,g�.,� \ .
�.e�r avER .�2a� r�E R o�� ;� �_ �i{��DE�
cvNrc�{ o�v�F c�`n� T2�v�-�r � �r4-K�
Ribl�T ��u�ru� a�n t�pvs�, � � �-�
Tl�E �-R12�7� �lJ�1S 13 Ui LT o/ll / F��" 3�k',�. .
,`'-- � r•,E N
.�t!-E 121T�6�E LlIIIE�iL'01 Tft�/� � c'`'„t� ,
L.QGUGR�D. _.. � oL�__2o�� ��� '�� ��� }��.��-c�-i+
��� � l000��pp
�. �,
�.
�
/ . - • ' `_ �'�r !'owE. T��..�<
�._ �
_ 'w�� ,
Tt+_i�._.P_o.RttCNo� -rN� �,._ `_.`_�.- ^.4�P,�E � �
._
1�_l,_D_ 1�0A'p IS STIL� ,-! ; �_ -t% � O/ �
vi 5 i��..E ran,�y. i ,r.�-------.__. ., � %
I '' _ — — - �
'; F /,
• I ' j� '� +,j,j' � '
1 '/ . j' �n✓Ce. /7�?2c.��
D
� ' � l \ , � � 1 ' . �
a 1 ' i�
� . � _ + t2lD6ELt/v� _ � ` �
�
' � � a __r, :��� .,' � �\
' oy .�� ` 1`�� �� � I� �l� a��/lJ��I
` j r
: � � r Y U-
�::_�� ; / i + � �' g3��+�1x ,:
=` � �'1 � �� � �
;`. ' C � `� t� / �� �� �.� '_ � %�
;;� � �y ��� �� � ;� ��� � � '�l'�plac�rv..�.._,
� � .. "� � �� � �� � � ,,;` ��' ; / C.-a�n�o id
_ �,{ �' . � �r�` \
� i!�� \ � f � :J%� ���-�-�-ci ie��
� � �� �� 3 Z�.
� � �
r `
� � ' '� ' �
�� �` '` � ° •�ANDQY RAS#�SF�J AND SOi�t..
;
;��-�-� 1�=.:�..�,�.� ' i� � �, '\ Cabie W5�t82�
'� ��:-�-�`; ! �� � (715: �798-335-5
;'-. . -'� � � , �� � _, � �
THOMAS R.J02NDT
225 N.Asru.nrvn Ave.
PARK RIDGE IL 6OOGS
TELEPHONE:847—R23-6536
$PIDtR LAKIs TEL: 71$-462-4U79
November 16,2001
Town of Spider Lake 7oning Board of Appeals
James Imse,Secretary
P.O.Box 777
Hayward WI 54843
Re:Petition for Variance, 13004 N.East Bay Drive �
Dear Sir:
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 current 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 pernut for our garage 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 variance 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"variance is now required,it
seems evident that such a variance should be granted when the Board takes into
consideration the following factors:
I. The garage�vas erected by us in reliance upon a valid building pernut issued by the
Township. It is important to note that our garage is in excess of seventy-five feet from
the adjoining shoreline of Big Spider Lake
2. We purchased the property in question with the intention of making it our retirement
home,and for a resident living in the Hayward vicinity an enclosed garage is an absolute
necessity. (There is no other location on our property where a garage could be built.)
Since buying the property,we have made improvements to the interior of our house
based upon our plans to live here on a year-round basis.
3. The impact of this garage on any adjoining wetland is negligible in that the garage was
built on land which can not be considered wetland,the size of adjouung 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 aze not requesting a rezoning at this
time, we believe it is relevant to point out that our gazage project has not had� unpact �
on those criteria, which are set forth as follows:
a) Storm and tlood water storage capacity;
b) Maintenance of dry season stream flow, the discharge of groundwater to a
wedand, the rechargc 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;
� Wildlife habitat;
g) Areas of special recreational, scenic or scientific interest, includ'mg scazce
wetland types.
4. Not oranting a variance and requiring removal of the garage at this point in time would
cause undo hardship 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 fict that a permit is a legal document giving pernvssion, consent and
authorization to build, serves to protect the Township, the County and the landowner.
Your consideration and approval of a variance based on our submission wouid be greatly
appreciated.
Sincerely
�!l/�� � .��C/
�—F=�-'�dti/ �
Thomas and Elaine o t
cc: Steve Boss, Zoning Administrator, Spider Lake
Eugene Krause, Chairman, Spider Lake
William A. Cl�ristman, Zoning Administrator, Sawyer County
Office of
Sawyer County Zoning Administration
P.O.6ox 668
Hayward, Wisconsin 54843
(715)634-8288
ORL:wwwsawyercounrygov.org
&mail:scgmnc@win.brighLnet
Mazch 4, 2002
Thomas R. and Elaine E. Jorndt
225 North Ashland Ave.
Park Ridge, IL 60068
Re: Pazcel :4.8, S 23, T 42N, R 07W, #13004 N East Bay Road, Town of Spider Lake:
Application for an After-the-Fact Variance
Deaz Mr. and Mrs. Jorndt:
I have received notification from the Town of Spider Lake Zoning Board of Appeals that
your request for the after-the-fact variance for the construction of the garage has been
approved. The next step is to apply for the variance to the Sawyer County Zoning Boazd
of Appeals.
I have enclosed the following documents with this letter:
• Inspection Report for the above property,
• "Court Decisions Regarding the Granting of Vaziances,"
• "Application for Variance - Additional Information"
• °Vaziance Application" -completed.
You should review the application for conectness, sign it, and return it to this office with
a check in the amount of$250.00 made out to the "Sawyer County Zoning
Administration" by Friday, April 5, 2002 for hearings in May 2002.
The "Application for Variance -Additional Information" must also be filled out and
returned with the Vaziance Application. Both documents together make up the entire
application that will be reviewed by the Sawyer County Board of Appeals. Failure to
return both of the documents or failure to complete either document in its entirety will
cause the vaziance application to be rejected by this office.
The Sawyer County Board of Appeals will conduct a public heazing on your application
at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 21, 2002, in the Circuit Courtroom located in the Sawyer
County Courthouse. You or your representative should attend this hearing.
It is your responsibility to convince the Board of Appeals to grant the variance(s) that you
have requested. Therefore, you should consider using any means at your disposal (i.e.,
photographs, drawings, a good verbal presentation, etc.) as you present your facts to the
Board.
Please contact Mrs. Kitty Taylor if you have any questions. Office hours are 8:00 A.M. to
4:00 P.M., Monday through Friday.
Yours truly,
i i A. is ma�
Zoning Administrator
Office of ' .
Sawyer County Zoning Administration
P.O. Boz 676
Hayward, Wisconsin 54843
Tel: (71S)634-8288
Fax: (715)6383277
URL: http:/hvww,sawyercountygov.org
E-mail: zoningsec@sawyercountygov.org
November 27, 2001
James Imse
12281 N Pederson Road
Hayward, WI 54843
Deaz Mr. Imse:
Enclosed are sununazies of court decisions that may have a beazing on the Jomdt 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.��::Firis m� an ������
Zoning Administrator
ProceduralIrre ariries?
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 constitute procedural irregulariry since nothing said by the
applicant at the meeting was material ro the ultimate decision. Loesdon v. Sawyer Countv
Zoninq Committee, Case No. 96-1458-FT, decided December 10, 1996 (Court of Appeals,
District III). Unpublished.
Mistakenlv Issued Approval Does Not Bind Local Government.
Applican[ obtained a vote of the Town Board approving a billboard. The Town
BuIlding Inspector issued a stop work order since the size of the approved sign was twice the
size allowed under the ordinance. The applicant argued that the vote by the Town Board to
approve the permit was effectively an amendment to the size requirements. The court
rejected this argument, detemunine that the proceedings of the Town Board did not include
the nocices and hearing required to formally amend the ordinance. The court upholds the
stop work order under the established doctrine that a permit enoneously 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, District IV). Unpuolished.
`Bad Actor" Consideration in After-the-Fact Variance Cases.
A properry owner seeking an afrer-the-fact variance sent their builder to the Board of
Adjustmenc After the variance was demed, they were told by a third parry that one or more
members of the Board had said privately that the builder has a history of ignoring approved
plans and seeking after-the-fact variances and Board members wanted to teach the builder a
lesson by refusing this variance. The applicant asked permission of the Circuit Court to take
testimony showing that members of the Board were prejudiced by the earlier misconduct of
the builder. The Court of Appeals rejecred this request, stating 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 irrelevant �vhen the applicant has failed to mee[ threshold
requirements for a variance.
3
The setback line from the lake was to be determined by an avera in
setbacks of the buildings on-either side of the vacant lot in question. The g g of actual
done measuring from the lakeside face of the buildings on the ad'oinin lo averaging was �
outer edge of either patios or decks extendin from � g �� not from the
Appeals upholds this measurement methodolog �e main buildings. The Court of
Countv Board of Adiustment, Case No. 94-22g1�, Junerl3s 1996e(C Ur�o pson v LaCrosse
IV)• Unpublished. Appeals, District
Reliance U on Zonin Ins ector.
Yet another Wisconsin coun case affirms the rule that erroneous permits or a
by a zoning inspector do not bind the municipality or protect a pro e o�, PProvals
in reliance upon approvals that are not legal under the ordinanceP � ner who builds
officials authorized location of a home on a riverfront lot. The DNis case, Village
administering floodplain zoning, appealed the permit to the Village Board of A
R, as part of
overturned the permit. The Village then sued to demand enforcement of heeBo rdich
Appeals decision and the DNR intervened. of
The Court of Appeals ruled that "in light of the DNR's statewide res onsibili
reputation, (the properry owner's) decision to rely on the Villa e . . . P tY and
unreasonable. " Fremont v. Mischler, Case No. 95-2292, decided November 14 tr1996 Co �S
of Appeals, District IV). Unpublished. ( urt
Is Past Precedent Bindin on a Variance Board?
In a case having several dimensions, most of which are unique to the facts of the
the Court of Appeals District II held that a Board of Adjustment is not boun case,
precedent of prior cases when those prior cases have somewhat different� follow
cucumstances, or if the Board concludes that a position taken in a prior case wa factual
According to the Court, "a zonin authon S a mistake.
Waukesha Co. Board of Ad'ustmen� 20�d 02�550 CN.W 2d m��ke. " �
Mis_=ald �•
District II 1996). 434 (Court of Appeals,
4
�,:, . , .. . . _ _ __ . . � ._�.:�._ .,--- -__ . �...�_�_.._._,.....___.__.._.__---- ___�._,�___ -
as the county Board of Adjusmient received." Klinger,149 Wis.2d 838 at 841.
HoldinR/Analvsis: 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 tha[is substanually the same
as[hat 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 cour[to pre-emp[the discredoo of the Board by
conducting a duplicative evidentiary hearing. Accordingly we�onclude that tLe circuit court should apply the
common-law certiorari standard of review when,as in this case,the 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 aftirmed.
Snyder v. A'aukesha Counry Zaning Bd.,74 Wis.2d 468,247 N.W.2d 98(1976)
Facts:A properry owner obtained verbat approval from a building inspector and proceeded to build a porch
onto his nooconfomung residence prior m obtaining a permit. Afrer construction,the permi[was denied
because the porch encroached oa[he side-yard offset and violated a floor-to-lot ratio ordinance. The owner
sought a variance,claiming that strict enforcement of the ordinance would result in practical difficulry or
unnecessary hardship. The Board of Adjustment denied his variance requect.
Ho]dine/,Analysis. In reviewing decisions that are beFore the court on certiorari under s.59.99(10),Stau.
(no�c numbered s.59.694(10),Stats.),judicial review is limiced to: "(1)�shether the board kept within
its jurisdiction;(2)whether it proceeded on a correct theory of law;(3)whether its action µas arbitrary,
oppressive or unreazonable and represented its Kill and not iu jud;menr,and(4)whether the evidence
was such that it might reasonabh make the.order or determination in question." Snyder,74 Wis.2d 468
at 475. In reviewing the decisions of a Board of Adjusanent,the Supreme Coun is hesitant to incerfere with
adminis�ative de[erminations,and accords the decision of[he BOA a presumpeion of correcmess and validity.
"'i'he decision of the board will be atbierary or wpricious if it is unreasonable or wi[hout ra[iooal basis. . . .
the findings of the board may not be disturbed if am reasonable view of the e�idencc sustains thcm....
The court ma}not substitute its discretion Cor that committed to the board b� the legislature." Sa�de�.
7»11'is.2d 468 ac 476.
For a;ummarc o`o�'�er holdines in tnis decision,see"Erroneous or linauthorized Ac�'in Section I4,and
'Financial Hardship or Losc of Profit'and"Unnecessan Hardship"in Sec[ion 26.
S:a•e e.t rel. BrooLside�.JeJl�erson Counre Bd.of Adiusrmen:, 131 U'is. '?d 101.388'�'.�1�.?d 593�198G)
Facts. F,r a sur.ima� u,`the facn and aher holdmgs m[his case,see"Standme to Apreal'in Section 3
Heldme'.Analcsis `ln common IaH cer[iorari the circuit court dces not take e�idence er.the ments of the case
and the scope of re�'ieu�is limi[ed to[he record presented to the tribunal W�hose decision is bcinF re��ieu�ed."
Brnolcside, 131\1'is.2d 101 a;119. The standard of teview�in such cases requires ffie cirw;t courc to defer to
the decision oC the board unless the decision is u�reasonable and without a rational basis."The tese is whether
reasonable minds could arrive at the same conclusion reached by[he adminis[retive tribunal." Broolcside, 131
�'is.2d]01 at 120. The Court concluded tha["when a circuit court is empowered under the statute
providing for certiorari to take e��idence on the meri[s of an administrative decision but[akes no such
evidence,[he circuit court reviews the administrative record under Iraditional standards of common-law
ccrtiorari." BrooF'side, 131 Wis.2d]Ol at 122.
State ex ref.Spinner r.Kenasha Counry Bd.ofAdjustment,223�k'is.2d 99,588 N.W.2d 662(Ct.App. 1998)
Faccs: Mr.George W'ronowski owned a 1.3 acre lot with lake frontage on Lake George in the Town of
Brisrol,Kenosha CounR. A creek also runs[hrough the lot. V✓heo[be shoreland setback from both th:lake
and the creek were measured,it was calculated[hat[here were only 1879 square feet of buildable space on[he
lot. In order to build a two-story residence with 2585 sq,ft.of Iiving space,Mr.Wronowski sough[a variance
from the shoreland setback for both[he lake and the cteek. The lienosha County Board of Adjustment granted
[he requested variance because of[he"unique topography of Wronowski's property."
Holdine/.Analvsis: "W'hen conducdng sta[u[ory cer[iorari judicial review,our standard of review of[he circuit
Iune 16,2000 3-5
Pege 2—November 10.2001 7,.B. "1..13. ---.- November 10.2001 —Pagc 3
Development—Developer builds $3.3 million wmplex � argument, an absurd result would alw�ys prevail - Ihe more a develo�r wa�
Couri orders deneoli[ion beeause i!drd not eornp(y wr�h comprehensive plan able lo spend,lhe more certain a court ccwld not order removal if it was already
built. '9t would allow developers such as Ihis one ro build in defiance of�he
FLORIDA(09/26/01)—"hvenly years ago,Pinecrest Lakes purehased a 500- limils and Ihen escape compliance by moking the cost of correction loo high."
acre parcel of land and set oot to develop it in phnses. Development was gov- Pinecresi Lakes should have wai�eJ un[il the finul appeal before undertak-
�emed by the Martin County eomprehensive plun.Phases one through nine were ing construc�ion. Pineerest Lakes knew when i[ started Ihal it might have los�
developed as single-family homes on individual lots in very low densities. in court The rule was Ihat"if you build it,and a court later proves i� inconsis-
Phase 10 was a 21-ncre parcel between the Phase One property and Jensen tent (with Ihe cotnprehensive plun), it will have to come down." As such, Ihe
� Bcach Boulevard,a divided highway designuted as"major"nnd":ir�erial."Phase demoli�ion was appropriutely ordered.
10 was designa�ed by Ihe comprehensive plan as medium density residcntial, .
Citnfioi�: Pinvcres7 L.ake.c lnc. v. Knren Shide(, Cm�r!afAppeaLc nf Flnrida,
wilh a muxfmum ofeight units per ocra Pinecrest Lakes suught tu tlevelup 13G Four�h Di.r�ne�, Nn. 9D99-26d1 (200/).
units wilh a dcnsity of 6.5 units per acre. Following a he�ring in which a num-
ber o(residen�s objected, the county commission :�pproved �he revisiun and ser nlso: Wef�un i< 40 O�+k Street 6uilding Corpnrarinn. 70 E2d 377(1934).
permitleJ lhe construetion of 19 two-story buildings. sce nfso: St. Lucfe Cnu��ry e S1. Lucre Vl(n,ge, 60J So.2d l2A9(/')921.
Scveral objecting re_eidents along with �he Homeowners Atsucia�ion (or
Pl�ases One through Nine sued thc M:irtin Counry Commission ch;illcnging Variance—Homeowner granled permit to build addilion onto house
. thc consistcncy o(the permit wilh Ihe comprchcnsive pl:m, reyuas�ing si revo-
cation of Ihc permit.The county commission cont7rmed itti previous decisiun 7��u�+%bonrd rejecls permi!afler comple(ion
tu allow Ihe permit W ISCONS W(OR/2 V01)—The Molitors owned a 60-foot wide parcel of land
The residents sued. The cour� found ihe permit was consis�ent wiih the luc:ited in the Lake Horne Flownge subdivision. The existinp town ordin:ince
cumprehensive plan and eniered judgmeut in fnvor of Pineerest Lakes. reyuired side yards lo be a minimum IS feel e:ieh, wi[h �he eombined tu�al
Inslead ofawaiting appeal of the decision,Pinecrest Lakes beg:m construc- eyualing at Ieast 35 feet. Iiowever, ihe urdinanee goveming setbneks;md per-
Iion of the project. ll npplied for und received permits for eonstruclion uf sev- missible lut wid�hs wus ;unenJed :d�er ihe Molitor's subJivision wtis crealed,
eral buildings and starte�l on each building while�he case wxs still in the ap- tind as sueh, �he subdivisiun was I.iw(ully nonconfonning.
pcals proeess. By the time Ihe appeal was decided, (he county had ixsued cery The Moliturs;ipplied for a land use permit to build an additiun nnd a garuge
tificales of occupancy and residents had moved in�o the building. un�o iheir home. Recause she bclieved ihe house w.is a prior nonconforming
The appeal, however, was not favurable for Pinecrest Lakes. The appeals use, �hc ronin� �echnieiun issued Ihe penni�.
court found that Phase]0 was not eonsis�ent wi�h the comprehensive pl�n.The Soon �hereafter, Ihe Moliturs soughl to modify Iheir permit lu enlurge Ihe
court ordered Pinecrest Lakes to s�op develuping Phasc 10 and to remove all �ddi�ion on [he house.The new xoning adminisirator reviewed the.���r�;�d�,�,
apartments lhrough either demolilion or relocation. and disenvered the old permit incorrec�ly sl.ited �he house with the aJdilion
Pinecres[Lakes appenled lhe demolition order, arguing the desVuction of inet �he IS-foot se[b.icF� IimiL She nlso found ihe Molitors built �he additiun
. five multi-family buildings would be the most radical remedy ever rnandated nvice as I,�rge as permiued.
by a Floridu court for inconsistency with a comprehensive plaa Pinecrest Lnkes The zoning administr;uur udvised ihe Molitors to remove�he addition from
also argued the demolition would result in a$33 million loss, and such a loss ihe huuse and :�d� it on �o Ihe garage. The Molitors, unsa�i>f�ed wilh lhe sug-
� far ou�weighed the diminution in Ihe value of the resideNs'proper�y($3IX)A(H)). gested solution,applied for a variance instead.
DECISION: Aflirmed. Tu receive Ihe vuriunce,the zoning 12w then in e(fec� rcyuired Ihe Molilors
Pinecres[ Lnkes was uppropria[ely ordered �o demolish Ihe exis�ing Phase �o demonstr.ue the dimension:il standnrJs of lhe ordinance .vould result in an
10 builJings. unnecessary h�rdship due ro special conditions unique[o th�� property,and Ihe
There w;�s nothing in�he law Ihat said anything about weighing�he umount vari:mce was no� contrary to public in�eresL Based on the existing variance
ol losses between each ofher- $3.3 milliun Io $300,000. [3ecause of the gen- law, the zoning board unanimously concluded enforcemen of lhe ordinance
cral disparily between the loss of developers and Ihe loss of residents,if weigh- . would nol have resul�ed in any h�rdship.The zoning board . Jditionally de�er-
ing Ihc loss wcre reyuired before demuli�ion, Ihen dcmolitiun wuulJ ncver be mined Ihe proposed v.iritmce wus conir:iry to public intere+i.
ordereJ.Pinecres�Ltike's;irgumen� would allow those wi�h financitil resources The Molirors appealed,arguing the standard forgranting a variance should
Iu buy Iheir way oW o( compliance wiih crnnprehensive plans. Under �heir havebeen"practicoddifficulty"insteadof"unnecessaryhardship."TheMoliton
Page 4—November 10, 2001 Z.B. 7..R. Nmrmber Ifl, 2001 — Pnge 5
further eontended�he zoning administrator had no uuthority to revoke lhe ear- - ac�ivities at Ihe site endangered the pYblic's health,safety,nnd welfare and did
lier building permi�, and the subsequent variance denial was based on"politi- nol make the wisest use of the county's resources.
cal in(ighling, pettiness,and outrighl (rauJ." The Kraemer Company sucd,alleging the zoning board's decision w:is :ir-
DECISION: Affirmed. bitrary,oppressivc,and unrcasonable. It funher assertcd Ihe minernl extruc�ion
. The variance was denied. activities predated Ihe ordinance nnd therefore constitWed a �ioncon(unning
The lerms"unnecessary hnrdship"und"pr.ic[ical difficully"had no practi- use which was exempt from(he special exception permit requiremen[.
c:d di(ference between Ihem. Moreover, tu cons�iwte unnecessary hardship, Thc zanin�board contended thc mincral cx�ciction activities censed for n
. �he hardship must be related lo a unique condition affecting the propehy. period of over 12 months after lhe ennctmenl of�he ordinance,and thus lust iis
Because the ordinance applieJ to the ncighboring properties in�he subdivi- status:is noncunforming use.
Kraemer argucd the mining activity hud not cease�i for a period excecding
sion,it w:�s not unique,and therefore could not constitute an unnecessary hurd- �Z ����nlhs. Kruemer asserted Ihe phrase "mining netivily" included not only
ship. Funhermore, ihere was no evidence �he Molitors' home was unlivable,
unsnfe, or Ihat �hey could not make reasonable use of the property. Thus, the the physical separation of mineralti f�um�he e¢rth,but also muintaining siuck-
. Molilorn (ailed to overcome the unneeessury hardship burden. piles, markeling and selling the product, und efforts�o sell the yuarry �ttielf as
Addiiionally,where a permit was issucd based upun an incorrect re:iding of
part of ongoing operatiuns.
;in urdinunce by a zoning official,il did nol prevent�he�own from later reject- The court found Ihe commerci:J ac�ivity on the site satisfied the zoning ordi-
_ fng ihe permit and enforcing�he ordinance as wriUen. nunce as use of Ihe propchy wilhoul discon�inuance.The court stated the"contin-
Laslly, Ihe only evitlence �he Molitors provided relev.mt �o "polilical in- �������e revulved uruund�he evidence�u sell lhe very produet thnt w:il extracieJ:'
figh�ing, pcuincss or outright fmud" was thc ncw zoning administrator's dis-
The z.oning board appealcd.
agreemeni with the previous zoning ndministrator. There was no furthcr sup- DECISION: Reversed.
purl for the claim, Ihus it was dismissed. The spccial exception permit w:is denieJ.
Accordingly, because the construetion o(Ihe addi�ion was a self-imposed l)nder the Sauk County ordinance, a nonconforming usc lus� its s�atus i(il
h:irdship,the vari�nce w�s denied and Ihe addition was ordered to be removed. wus discontinued for over 12 months. The central ques�ion boiled down io
Ciru�imc Mnlilnr e Ri�sk Counry BnarAofAdj��slmenr, Court oJ'Appeals nf �+'��ether ur not"mining activity"had discontinued for a period of 12 monlhs or
lViscnn.cin, No. 00-2554(2001). more since the enactment of[he ordinance.
Even if"mining activity" did fnclude marketing and selling the produc�,
e�er uLcn:Sn��drr v. Wuukr.slm Cnunty7.�>ning Unard ofAdju.crrnenr. 2d7N.W.2r! there was not nn .ippreciuble amoun� of mxrketing and selling for a periud ��I
'/��'(1976). ovcr 12 munths. No sale of processed granite took pluce between June IG.
ser ulsn: Villn,qe nf Wind Point v. Ha(veccon, l 55 N.W.2d 654(1967J. 1988, and Oclober 6, 1989, Ihe period in which Edward Kraemer&Sons was
purchasing the property. All operations cwsed, and no cusromer orJers were
placed or f'illed after September 1988. Further, �here was IitUe or no evidence
Nonconforming Use—Quarry owner aUempls lo sell �howing there was any"yuarrying"bcing done.During the relevnnt period the
Did period af ownership lransilion defea[nanconfnrming use sla(us? gates were dosed .md lockcd, Ihc drivcway was overgrown wi�h wecds :md
WISCONSW (09/27/01)—E3araboo Quartziie uperatcd a yuarry as a nonmc- grass from non-usc, und the eyuipmenl was msly and in a stu�c uf disrepair.
. Thus, Ihc only signif icant activily Ihat occurrcd during�he 12 monihs w;is
tallic mine�ul exlraclion site. In 1986,Sauk County p�iesed a wning ordinancc
B��raboo Quar�zite's steps lo scll �hc business nnd sluckpile lhe granite. Inicr-
prohibiting minerul extrae�ion aclivities on pruperty situated in agrimillural preting the words"mining;idivity" in the zoning ordin:mce to include selling
Jistricis withoul a special pemiiL As a preexisling,nonconforming use,6arabou
utir(zite continued lo o era[e�he ua afler the nt� e of the ordin;mee. Ihe yuurry ilself,or stockpiling the pruduct,would be nbvurd II cannot reasnn-
Q � 9 � ������ 'ibl contititule mine�al extraction uc�ivities.
Edward Kraemer & Sons purchased the quarry in 1989 and �he board of ` Y
;idjuslmeN granled a five-year speciul execption permit lo oper.ite the yn;irry. �3ecause ihe nonconforming use siatus was lusl due lo inuperation, ❑nd
The pennit wus exlended an additional two years in 1994. hecause the roning board's denial of ihe special permit wns reasonable, ihc
Kraemer Company purchased ihe si�e from 8dward Kraemer & Sons in
�peciul permit was approprialely denied.
1996 and submittcd an applicntion for renewal of�he special exception permit. Cim7inn: Kroemer Compurry LLC v. Suuk Cmo�ty Bnnr�!ofAdjustmen�,
The buard denied Ihe pennit, however, reasoning Iha� �he mineral extr:ic�ion Cuiv�oj�ppeal.r ojWi.s��nn.cin, Nn. 00-2564(2001).
Page 6—luly 10, 2001 Z.B. � Z.B. July 10. 2001 — Page 7
Steens filed an appliwtion for n site plan approv�l for a private career school The commonwealth appealed.
io train hunting, horsepack, and trail ride goides. The application called for a DFCISION: Affirmed.
+choul building, 19 cabins,m�d;i maintenance shop. Public nr private schools The legislature au[horized the board of supervisors to "prescribe the fines
were ouirighl permiUed uses on land zoned exclusive fann use.
Nei�hbors sued, and the court raled in favor of Steens. The neighbors ap- ����d penalties which muy be imposed" for an ordinance violatio�i. Fur[her, the
peuled �u ihe Land Use Bo.irJ of Appeals(LUBA), which reversed the county 1aw explicitly stated ihe board uf supervisors could delegate tmthority to issue
cuur�. � criminul ci[a�ions.
Stecns ;ippealed. These provisions, however, merely �m�horiud the board of supervisurs �u
delega�c authority; they diJ not in :md oC �hemselves gran[ au[hority ro anY
DECISION: Affirmed. individuaL Conseyuently,�his delegu[ion of�uthority,irom the board otsuper-
A voc:uional school such ns the one proposed was nol contemplated by the visors lo the township engineer,had to also be explicit.Y'here was no evidenee
zuning code. to suggcst such an express delegatiun of:mthority occurred.Aceordingly,T.�ylur
ll appetired �he phrase "public or private school" was generally used to was not vested with the authority to issue criminul cit:itions.
describe elementary or secondary schools. After considering its text and con-
text, �:irticularly [he fac[ this type of use was' an cxception to d�e general re- Cit�ti��ic Comninmveuflh of Penn.svlva�ra r. Thendnrwr, Conm�omreul�/�
yuiremem that land zoned exclusive fnrm use be used exclusively for fann Coiirt of Peiui.rvlvania, No. /L90 C.D. 2000(2001).
uses,the phrase did not include the broud runge of vocational or career schools see ol.ro:Deparnnenr ofEnvim�zrnenral Re.rr�m�r�es r. Quoker Stnre Oil Ref'ini�i,�
Steeus asserted.
Consequently, LUBA did not err in concluding the phrase "public or pri- Ca, 452 A.2d 614 (/9R2).
vute school"did not include a career school such as Ihe one proposed by Steens. .see alsa� C��mn�on�+�ealth v. Adame�, 502 A.2d 1345 (/936).
Ci�rUion: Warhurtan e Hari�ey Cmtnry, Cour�of Appenls of Oregnn, No. �
Af13446(2007). Variance—Home built before variance requested
cer a[so: Brentmor v. Jackson Cntu�ry, 900 Y.2d 1030(l995). OHIO (OC/01/01)—Go bought a lol in lhe Deerfield Gslates subdivision and
hired a builder,Bartel,�o construct a custom-designed home for him on the lot.
cee nlso:MeCa�i�Cnmm�micntimts b�c. e Mnrion Coun�v, 773 P.2d 779(1989J. Go's lut backe� up to Feedwire Road, and ihe width of Ihe rear portion of Ihe
lot was defined by a large mound of dirt, measuring upproximalely nine fee�
Enforcement—Township engineer issues criminal citations high and 20 fe�et deep, which apparenlly served as n sound burricr betwecn d e
'GNNSYLVANIA OS/29/O1 � road an4 the subdivision.
( )—Taylor w:is�he manuging par[ner of an en�i-
icering firm nppointed by Neshannock Township as township engineer.Taylor After Go had designed his home to fit ihe dimensionx of the lot, Ihe builJer
ssued:i ci�:ition against Theodorou for violu�ing�he storm water management staked oul where the house would sit on �he lut in keepin� wi�h nll o( Ihe
irdin�mce of the township. Theodorou was ordered lo pny n $I,000 (ine plus ��pplicable zoning reyuiremenls. In pnnicular,the fron�s[akes were set b:ick d0
.��yi� fee( from the street, which was ihe minimum setbnck reyuiretl by Ihe roning
Theudurou nued, contending Taylor had nu au�hority tu ilsuc �he ci�ulion. ordinance.
�aylur sLued he received a call from a township supervisor und w.is asked tn Once Ihe st.ikes were se�,however,Gu and Barlel realized�he porch on thc
nvcctiga�e a eompl.iint ag�ins� Theodorou. bnck of the house would be very close tu the mound, nnd Go t�sked whether ii
Fulluwing his investigatiun, Taylor sent Theodorou a letter indieating the wuuld be possible to move the huuse closcr to the street.
Ileratiun of n pipe was a viol,ition uf Ihe�uwnship's ordinance and had �o be Bartel appro.�ched IheSugarereekTownshipZoning Inspectur,Sloner,ahuut
urrccted within seven duys.The last p:iragruph uf the leuer sta[ed the town�ehip's moving the house forward 10 feel. S�oner ullegedly �aid there would be no
nunicip.il engincer wrote iL Taylur also e.xplained �he�ownship engineer was problem and no variance needed,:md B�rlel finished constmetion of the house
uthorized by the Second Cl:iss Township Code. Additionally, the township � ,�,,,,� 30 feet from [he rond.
olicilor informed him he had the:wthority, in this particular case, �o issue[he When Go's bank eondocted a survey of the proper[y prior to elosing the
i�a�ion. Ultima�ely, �he court concluded'Cnylor did not have lhe au�hority to loan, i� discovereJ ihe home tlid not comply with se�back requiremen�s. The
;sue ihe cittuiun. bnard of zoning appeals denied the v�iriance.
� Pageft—July 1Q 2001 Z.B. ,
Go sued, and Ihe court affirmed the decision.
Go appwled.
DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court.
� Although lhe variance could be denied,the board relied on the wrong stan-
dard for granting a variance.Conseyuendy, Ihe decision had to be reexamined
. by the luwer courl.
Under state law an area variance had a different standurd than usc vuri-
ances. The correct st:mdard was wheiher a property owner seeking an area
. variance encoontcrcd practical difficulties in the use of his or her property,
inc�uding whether Ihe property would yield a reasonable remrn, the variunce
wus subst;mtial, the ch�ncter of the neighborhood would change,and whether
the owner's predicamen[ coold be allevia�ed in some o�her way lhan a vari-
ance. Because [he township did not
make a distinction between use and
area variances,the variance decision
had to bc rcmade. QllCStIOIIS� COIIlI11CIItS�
Subscription infoanation:
Citation: Co v. Sugarcreek Customer Service
7nwn.rhip Board nf Zoning (800)229-2084
Appeals, CnurtofAppeal.rofOhio, i�ifo@quinlan.com f�
2nd App. Drst., Greerre Co., $di[orial quesfions/
Nn. 2000 CA 66(200!).
comments:
.ree al.so: Kisil v. Sandusky, 465 Alexander D. Ruskell,Esq.
N.E2d R48(/984). (617)542-0048
.see also: Duncan ��. Village of aruskell@quinlan.com
Middlejteld,49!N.E.2d 692(/986).
————————————————————————
Zoning Biweekly Bulletin
To order Zoning 8iweekly Bulletin,call (S00)229-2084, or complete and
� - reWm this form �o Quinlan Publishing Group, 23 Drydock Ave., Boston, MA
02210-2387, orfax (800) 539-8839.
$92 (plus$8.81 s&h)— 1 year(24 issues)
� � ❑ New subscription ❑ Payment enclosed
U Renewal subscription O Bill me zONo
Name
Organization
Address
Ciry State Zip �
Phone Fax
Email
� � l
� � �
.
�
_ .
__ _- - .
, - -- -
, ___ __--
,
�
� �--�
�
�
_ �,.�
� �
N
/`.��j^�
Ll/�'� �� ��Y
`\\`��., / �\_
;
�
8i R _
1
;%Oi%//%%%%%;< /
- � ....,.._ ._.:.-
j' � �UT
_ °p0a �tus oR
— —
—
- --- � �, :.. � .: �
� �.
�� `.�
>. �^ �
,,
� �
� ��.� �`��,�
� ; r �,�
--1 , � �
r ' ` l - �(ES NEST lN
��.
; i �
j � ,,<�
-�-�- ` � ��
�� �,, �. �
, �
: ,.. .. . . _, _
� � i _
-----
- ----
---. � . _.-__ _.. . ... . -� r �
�----- -��'�--._. ...._._.. . . .. � ,,.., .
i
� �F l �
�°�� � _ ♦
�
,-
,
� _�---� -�
� . ! �
, ��'p
�J ' I
'b
i
� �
I � /
\ �
� � �
, �,/ v�,._
; �
, -
� ` V � \ 1 �n ti Y ti -� y ti
ii��► � r „ L � 1 i $ i i i i
����� ��� �a��o � � � � � ~ � � # � ��o �, � 1
� `
�4 � � � i���� �,. � � y � � � � � ; ,°
���� �E � � °�b ❑ ❑ oo � � 000 � ❑ ❑ '� b y �' c� � : � � � �
• ��a Mt� '` ��z b � � � •. c� �i � baa '� � �7 � p b � 'y 0 � � ; � € �
��� ��� � � � � � � a � � � �, i i i i � ,� � � � � y �
�� � 3 �..000 b '�] h '�3 � � � � � � � y b � � �r ^ `� �j = �
��� ha � ' �
� ` � V � ~ � vl v �
�� �_�`'�
„ b2Nrvry a G� b � y �
•``n�� � � O �
a � � s ror��v b � �
� , �or�vror�v � � �
�"j,a�,:Q ,��� � � � � �J
a� • ,.. vy`v ,�.
- .• • r�n,w y � �A ZV
� o.•. . � cocnw „C
saa �J �2 1V C•�
� t��
P1o�R
S
'4.7
:4. IA1
_�--_ '410 '4.9
4-8 :4.6
:4.4
41
PINERIDGE SUB.ED
41,
SPIDER \\%
LK.
\\
1
�� • Ya ' % SPIDER ; I . I � % -
O
LAKE
1.2
•1.4 O n 5 2 .2.1
�I.lo
1.5
ED
�NO
WHIPL ASH
LAKE
1.9-
o- -
R8i
(3D
.10. z
I
S
2.4
LAKE
1
/ 1
PINERIDGE SUB.
�zj
SPIDER
i,
If
SPIDER
pyo� WH/PLASH
LAKE
Rai
�d
���, � � ��mcLs 2. Sornd�-
Po.�-� o� �t � , a3.�a.� Po��..�¢ :y.8.
a3. �a.� ���� �.�.
:'�.3 �o.-�z.4�acu. � ��u.nx. s .�acz.2�P �R 779�aa
�� �aa we��erz.s ��.�,_
F�.�e,.� F�o.a.cz�� ,mr, ���ti�
: '�.�I P�c�Ct. �r'(�.u.�n�T'�rr{�son �(a l /53
�•O PJ�x �3
��e,n�,ocx�, CA q5ysa
wm.e-L3e�n�e�#-, �1;za.he�cn µ.�3e�ne�-f� ��le.e�.�.Rad,c-��
: N.5 � i�e��-r. 3enn�. 3q4��o�
i5 � 7cx.1d �o[�d �3.01
��-�p:.�,..Q, Y`nn. 5�I I�
:�1.(o UennaS m � � �cvc�q� 1�•�i e,�e�t�cyu.w�n 3��aC�9
a848�rJ �o �-� �-c4
�ec�02, i�l j�13(�4
:N•� }�a2t2�.e�m. � �; �d l�eS�ax.d ZR 39a1 v�-s
�aRqBn� �� � Rd
��ssd, � s�t 8�t3
: '�.� �l o..�.�e � �—(F�.omca� 2.�o2r,c�.'�- C�i a�v i(
�.''�Si�
:�.q (`�olL� O��r, R�oc•�2��- t�������
S80A � . C�UI� 2z�C0 1.�� 51
�'�\�e.� , zl Coo�►4
� -- — . — --
�.��� . t o Sea�. C � �w�ci s. sw �a�e.Q,�c.�. 5�13 l �o
� �o a8 �t �o� � i�-���e.
�-{wasc9� ws 548�+3
: `� . �� �Q�na A . `��'Av��2� 7�l1 �187
�a3 s . �us� �e� 'L�',v-e
�he�oyqc�.,l, , w� 5�0�►
:'�1 . l a i-�e\�e,n Co . Sc�r,m;d�- �/`�8 i
t�-t3w �a.��-; m o�e P� K�3 i�l
t�-Xx.u.�a. , Pa l 4 0(�3
a � 4a .�t �-,� � 1�
a . l lA�e�,� 1 � Par�.on -S . Sc�rc��es� SZoy��kaa
i a�a l r� 1,�.ppe.�z R �2.��.
-}�A�(l�.sC� , Wz 54843 -
,
' ----
Office of
Sawyer County 'Loning Administration
P.O.Box 676
Hayward, Wisconsin 54843
(71�634-8288
March 26, 2002
Elaine E. and Thomas R. Jorndt
Re: Part of Gov't lot 4, S 23, T 42N, F 7W; Parcel :4.8.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jorndr
Your application for a variaoce will be considered at a Public Hearing before the
Sawyer Counry Zoning Board of Appeals on
21 May 2002
This hearir.g will begin at 7:00 P.M. in the Sawyer County Courthouse, 10610 Main
Street. Havward, Wisconsin.
It is recommended that either you or a representative be present at the Hearing. A lack
of information about the situation may result in unnecessary delay of a decision.
Failure to appear may result in the denial of the application.
If it is impossible for a representative to be present, please submit a written statement
to this office directed to Arvid H. Vallem, Chairman of the Board of Appeals. This
statement should include a description of the general terrain; surrounding development;
your proposed intentions; and the purpose of the request. Photographs of the property
and/or buildings are requested. Explain the undue zoning hardship inflicted upoo the
owner by conforming to the required minimum regulation, which induced the variance
request. Convenience and fmancial loss or gain dces not constitute a zoning hardship.
Note%�** Your application will come before the Town Board for their review. Please contact the
Town Clerk, Ruth Guyer; 462-3389 to obtain the time and conSrm the date of the
Town Board meeting for your attendance or the attendance of your agent.
Our office has been informed by the Town Clerk that your application
for variance wi11 not be heard at the Town Board meeting. This
application has already been approved by the Spider Lake Board of
Appeals . So it is not necessary to appear before the Town Board on
this matter.