TOWN OF
PLAN COMMISSION
August 18, 2008
Approved
Present: Chairman Kenneth Runyard, Commissioners Robert Peregrine, Richard Garvey,
Richard Heinrich, Town Planner Jeffrey Herrmann, approximately 12 citizens
Absent: James Navin
Chairman Runyard called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda
1. Approve minutes for August 4th, 2008 Plan Commission meeting.
Peregrine moved to approve the minutes as printed. Seconded by Garvey. Carried
unanimously.
2. Public Comments: None
3.
Randy
Eder: Consider and act on Site Plan/Plan
of Operation/Randy’s
Waterline/Road
P/Okauchee
The tavern building at present is vacant, although in the past it has been operated
as a tavern. The petitioner plans to use the premises as a tavern and not make any
changes in the interior or exterior of the building. Peregrine moved to recommend to
the County that they approve the Site Plan and Plan of Operation in accordance with
the conditions stated in the Planner’s memo dated August 13, 2008. Seconded by
Garvey. Carried unanimously.
4.
Gary
Kohlenberg: Discussion of Conceptual
land use plan/Hwy 16
Gary Kohlenberg stated that the subject property is on the corner of Hwy 16 and
Division St. The parcel right on the corner is owned by the State DOT. The subject
Parcel is approximately 1.25 acres
to the west of the
The proposal is to build three 3 family buildings on the 1.25 acres, which would be
6000 sq ft per unit. The County ordinance allows 4000 sq ft per unit with sewer.
This is zoned commercial in the Land Use Plan.
The Commission advised the petitioner that three 3 family buildings would be too
dense for this situation. He was advised to contact the Mary Lane Sewer District
to determine just what he could put on this location – maybe one 3 and one 2
family. B-3 zoning does not allow residential without some business use. He
should also investigate two 2 families including septic and driveways.
5.
Donald &
Suzanne Dysland: Consider and act on
after-the-fact variances/
Remodel/additions/retaining walls/Road O
W340 N4867 Road O, on
Mr. Dysland appeared with his attorney, Bob Ohlenbach. The petitioner’s request
After-the-fact variances for remodeling and additions to the main residence,
construction of a deck addition to the main residence, remodeling to the guest
House/cottage, remodeling of the detached garage, and construction of retaining walls
and hot tub. Mr. Dysland stated that it just grew and got out of hand. He stated that
he did not add any buildings; he changed an outside entranced closet to an inside
entranced one; he built up an outside walkway, not enclosed; he extended the porch
6 ft x 6 ft; the deck is approximately 50 – 60 ft from the lake. Dirt from a retaining
wall which was removed from the side of a cottage owned by Borowski, a neighbor
whose guest cottage is encroaching on Dyland’s property, was moved by Dysland
from an east- west location to a north-south location. The property is on sewer, but
he cannot connect until this issue is resolved.
Peregrine moved to recommend to the Board of Adjustment that they grant the
Variances applied for, the reason being that the petitioner’s property is approximately
75 years old and needed repairs. We note that the wood deck which was added on
the lake side of the main house where the hot tub is located is a tad close to the
south lot line; however, there are no improvements on the lot to the south. The added
deck on the north side of the property is well on to the lot and no variance is needed
for that. The repairs to the other buildings on the lot are simply repairs which were
made in lieu of razing the property, which would have been a hardship for the
petitioner. As to the retaining walls on this sloping lot, some are on his property
and created or improved by the petitioner; others were placed on the property years
ago by a neighbor. We recommend that the retaining walls be limited to four feet.
Seconded by Garvey. Jeff stated that the Building Inspector must inspect and be
certain that all is up to code
Charles Stelter, W340 N4875 Road O. He wants to inform the Plan Commission of
safety issues before they vote. He stated that the work was not done up to code and
was an unsafe structure. He stated that the guest house was actually raised 18 inches
and was turned from a garage back into a cottage. He feels the Plan Commission
has been misled. He fears the next owner may use it as a rental
Mr. Dysland’s attorney stated that any violations to code would be disclosed by
the Building Inspector. Motion carried unanimously.
7.
Ronald Borowski: Consider and act on after-the-fact
variance/retaining wall/
Build 2nd
story addition and detached garage/Road O
W340 N4859 Road O, on
The petitioner wants approval for a retaining wall that was constructed too close to
the north lot line and variances to permit the construction of a proposed second
story addition to the main residence and construction of a detached garage.
Both Mr. Borowski and Mr. Dysland stated that they have no problem with the
Retaining wall. The first story extends out 10 ft beyond the second story and the
Petitioner wants to extend the second story out 10 ft. He plans to tear down a shed
And build a 20 ft x 24 ft garage. His property is on sewer.
Peregrine moved to recommend to the Board of Adjustment that, with respect to the
variances relating to the main dwelling, that those variances be granted. Petitioner
intends not to change the foot print of the house, but merely bump out the west wall
of the property on the second floor and line it up with the existing first floor. With
respect to the garage, that appears to be far enough from the lot line and should be
approved provided the existing shed is removed. With respect to the retaining wall
we reviewed the location of that wall and considered the Dysland matter just
previous to this and it appears that the two property owners have solved a problem
that existed by connecting the wall from both properties across the five foot area
adjacent to the lot line and in this matter we recommend that the retaining walls
be no higher than four feet and should be approved. Seconded by Garvey.
Carried unanimously
8.
Charles
Stelter: Consider and act on
after-the-fact variances/deck/hot tub/
Shed/Road O
W340 N4875 Road O, on
The petitioner wants approval for reconstruction and enlargement of a deck and
placement of a hot tub, also for construction of a shed on the property. Mr.
Stelter stated that boards on his existing deck were starting to rot, so they had to
be replaced. At the same time he removed an old sidewalk on the south side of
the home and connected the back and front decks. In order to offset the hot tub
so it would not create a safety issue with the front door, he expanded the deck four
feet towards the lake so he could reposition the hot tub to have a clear entry into and
out of the house. The north side of the deck is 75 ft from the lake; the south side is
74 ft from the lake. There is a shed by the lake, one by the garage, and a garage.
Decks on either side are 20 to 30 ft from the lake. The property is on sewer.
Peregrine moved to recommend to the Board of Adjustment that the variances
and special exceptions applied for be granted. The lot is very narrow and it is
very difficult to comply completely, although we do note that the deck on the lake
side is quite close to being in compliance. Further we approve the number of
accessory buildings, the two sheds and garage on the property. Seconded by
Garvey. Carried unanimously.
9.
Menacho/Thelen: Consider and act on request to reduce the
Road Right of Way
On
Bauer’s Lane from 66 feet to 30 feet
Jeff explained that the south part of Bauer’s Lane is platted at 66 ft wide. When it
turns due north it reduces down to 30 ft platted. The County considers it 66 ft
established, so all the setbacks are based on the 66 ft. Jim Gage of Thelen Con-
struction who accompanied the Menachos, explained that if it were changed they
would be able to construct two bedrooms on the first floor; as it is, they can have
only one. Mrs. Menacho has a letter from neighbors supporting the petition to
change the Road Right of Way.
Peregrine moved to recommend to the Town Board that the established road right
of way of 66 ft be reduced to the platted right of way of 30 ft. Seconded by Garvey.
Carried unanimously.
6.
RMRK
Investments: Consider and act on Site
Plan/Plan of Operation/
Additions/Auto Connectionz/Hwy 16
Jeff stated that this request is merely for interior remodeling.
Peregrine moved to approve the amendments to the Site Plan/Plan of Operation
for the petitioner subject to the recommendations of the Planner in the memo
dated August 8, 2008. Seconded by Garvey. Carried unanimously.
10. Discussion of Smart Growth Plan
Jeff stated that at the September meeting he will have 2 or 3 chapters ready to be
discussed. He will redline the changes.
11. Consider and act on setting meeting dates
for September, due to Labor Day
A meeting on Tuesday September 2 will address the two zoning changes and whatever else comes up. August 21 will be a public hearing.
12. Adjourn
Peregrine moved to adjourn. Seconded by Garvey. Carried unanimously.
Adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Callen, Recording Secretary.