Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. I'd like to call to order town of East Troy Plan Commission for the month of a uh excuse me, August. Uh let the record show that all the commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Gordon who is uh um relieved by Commissioner Neielson. Thank you. Uh so how we work is we are we work on a split meeting format. Tonight is our informational meeting where we'll have the uh applicant come up present what they're what they're looking for u give their explanation. The uh board will ask questions of them um back and forth. We will then have a short discussion amongst commissioners and then at that point we would open it up to the audience to uh anybody who would like to speak in favor of the proposal. Then anybody who would like to speak against the proposal if necessary uh a short rebuttal from the applicant. We then adjourn for two weeks and come back you do our research come back in two weeks and make our decision. That being said that's not by ordinance. So if we feel it's a straightforward decision we can make tonight we will make it tonight. First item on the agenda is to review and approve the plan commission minutes from July 9th.

I'll make a motion to approve the July 9th planning commission meeting minutes as presented. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? I'll second. All those in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. Next item on the agenda is a variance uh N uh 8728 Wmer's Point Road parcel PWW 000013. David and Nisha Burns. Are they if you could come up and [Music] All right. Well, um first of all, I want to thank all of you here on the board. Um I in the past have been on two terms of zoning board of appeals and one high school school board term as well. So I understand the time and effort you guys are doing and serving the community. So appreciate that. Um go to the next slide. So, in terms of what I want to go through is I know this has been in your um your packet. I just wanted to take you through kind of the project description uh the current status of the house uh kind of the expected outcome uh of what we plan to do with the project and then talk through a little bit of the three-step process or the three-step uh yeah test. Okay. Um well, I could go right back real quick. Um there you go. So, the project description is pretty straightforward. Um, one, we want to rebuild our deck and stairway uh with the same footprint. Um, we are going to reduce a little bit of the footprint based on the second piece um to to have zero um impervious surface impact, but more or less we want to be able to replace the existing deck and stairway. The second part of the project is to extend the deck on the east side just a little bit to create a space where we can sit outside uh without having any issues with egress or entry in a safe way. Um so in a current in and this is what you see right there. You can see the location of the stairs off to the bottom left. That's where you can enter the

garage to the bottom left. I wish I had a little pointer. Um, but it's uh the bottom left there's a a a landing where you get into the garage. Then you go down to our main level uh where our kitchen, living room, family room, dining area is. And there's a landing um at the bottom of that first stairs on the left side. That's the way you enter into the house. Then there's a walkway to go around the house to the east side. Um assuming north is pointing upwards to be able to enter in French doors on the lake side on that east side. Um there's also uh a way to take the stairs down to the lower level. It's a ground level um for which you can then enter into the uh we'll say the basement. Um so that's what the house that's the footprint and that's where the the project um is going to happen. Right. Um so this is just a visual look of this. The the top left is the stairs that come down from the garage um and the driveway coming down to the front door, if you will, to to go into our main level. You can see on the on the picture to the right, that's the walkway to go down to the to the east wall and enter those French doors on the lakeside and then going down the stairway to the to the main or I'm sorry, to the uh lower level, our our basement. And then the left side picture is where you see how it wraps around and provides access to the French doors going onto the in onto the uh east side main level. Go ahead. Okay. Um you know the current status of this is that the deck is significantly deteriorating. These are tough pictures to to really get to the details, but the posts that are holding up uh pulling it up are deteriorating toward like at the land level. Um we don't know if there's concrete underneath it, so we don't know how much rotting is happening below it.

Um the railings and the decking themselves are having a hard time even staying on. In fact, just this weekend, my my son told me the next morning I had the the the tread just sitting on it where the tread came off. And the reason these are coming off is because the joist underneath it and the stringers are rotting. And so in order for me to fix this, I have to add extra wood to it next to it to have something to screw in. It actually holds onto it. Same thing with the railings. So that's the intention of replacing the deck. Um it's just you'll see that there's some limitations of that based on the footprint. Um so go to the next one please. So that's part of the project. Um the other current status of this now is that you can see um where the deck has not been extended and from a visual perspective there's no splitting up of anything from a vertical scale perspective. It's just one big tall thing. And um that walkway is really only from those doors to get around the house and and exit um exit or entry. So go ahead. The next page is what to expect of the the project. You can see where the deck has been moved uh all the way to the um the north side, the north and east corner. Um we're planning to use uh composite decking to be more sustainable and be maintainable. Um, we're going to have cables as instead of ballusters to try to limit how visual that is. We're trying to have the least amount of scale, you know, material to be looking at. Um, so we're going to go with tables, but otherwise it's going to be the same same look and feel uh with the exception of the the extension. Go ahead. So, going to the three-step process uh from the unique properties limitations. It's really what it is is the the foot the existing footprint. Um when we

purchased it, we didn't know um about the 75 ft shoreline setback issue. Um we found out shortly thereafter after we bought it and we wanted to put stoops. There was no stoops um on that lower level. There were just doors to get out, but we had no stoops. And when we wanted to put the stoops and a little utility shut, we had to go through this variance process uh 12 years ago. So we we learned then but we had already purchased the house. And so with this footprint, we of course are well inside that 75 ft and there are a few parts of the stairway um that are inside the 3-FFT setback um from that southern uh neighbor. Um, and so given that footprint, we're just very very limited in terms of what we can do to get around this from both rebuilding a staircase. We can't just rebuild it as it is uh due to this and we have no way to add anything where we can sit down within the these limitations um without really tearing down part of our house because just the footprint is is kind of the footprint. So this just gives you a sense of where those things are. You can see that we're 58 feet away as was built um by the owner and who had who had built this out um on the circle to the right. And then the circles on the bottom are just showing the issues there of the setback to the neighbor. Um I think one is 2.2 and the other is you know two 2 ft or so something like that. That's where we're having issues with just being able to rebuild the uh the deck and and stairway with very again I don't know how else we'd be able to get to those locations of the building um without that staircase or trying to move it somewhere else. Um go ahead. Okay. So unnecessary hardships. Um the hardship here is we really have nowhere to sit outside. We can go out on the deck and

stand and look, but to just sit down and enjoy the the view of our of our yard and the lake, uh we can't really do that because if we put seats within anywhere on that on that walkway because of the size of it, it would be a hindrance. It would not be safe for egress. And um I just dropped off my mom and my dad. They both have walkers. They're here for a family reunion this weekend. and uh there's no way we could put any chairs in there and then safely be able to navigate around on that on that place. So um that that's a hardship that we really don't have anywhere to to sit out of the main level. Um and it's just impractical and would be crazy burdensome to like tear down part of the building to be able to do this. Um so that would be archer. Go ahead. So, just to give you a sense, that's where it's just a pointing out where where that egress is. So, if you if you needed to get out those doors, um you can't put any chairs on that part of the walkway um because you wouldn't be able to to get out safely. Next, please. Okay. No harm to public uh interests. Um, as we consider uh the visibility of our neighbors house where we're extending the deck and potentially creating somewhere where we could look into their yard more, we have a window directly adjacent to where that deck would be extended. And there's a picture right after this where um you're not able to see anything new that you would if you were on that deck. And uh I can tell you what my intentions are. Um but I don't think that's going to make anything work. I have no intention of looking at it. But but practically speaking from a geometry perspective, if this is where the deck is,

the windows about like this looking exactly at the same same thing. And I think I've got some pictures of that. In addition that there's a bedroom that we would be able to look into. Uh it's probably about 35 ft away. Um, what we are as the second bullet is we're adjacent to the neighbor's detached garage. So, unless somebody's really trying to deal with having our viewing into their garage, which I don't think there's any windows, that would be a problem, but there there isn't. Um, from a public interest perspective, we believe that extending the deck is actually an improvement from a visual appeal perspective and actually could could increase their property value next door to them by not having this thing that's just so vertically, you know, it just seems big. We want to split it up. We want it to be architecturally look better um for them um and hopefully improve their um property value as well. And then the other thing um from a no harm perspective is we're removing the landing at the ground level, which when they built this thing out, it's a huge layered landing and steps going on all parts. We're going to remove that landing and with the code we can just make it a stairway that goes down to ground level instead. And we're also taking away some of the bumpouts on the walkway. If you see some of those pictures, it kind of comes out a little bit and then goes in and comes out. We're going to make it straight across and we're actually taking away that imperous surface because the deck is considered impervious surface. So, we're going to take away some of that to actually make it just a bit. It's not a lot, but we're making it a little smaller. So that net net even with making this extension there's no net change of impervious surface. It's net zero. So we're not trying to to add anything. It's just moving impervious surface from one thing to another. I think that's it. So these are the

pictures. So it gives you a sense of the window on the left side. You can see the window right next to it. Um and I don't know if you used the updated one, Jen, but that's okay. If you didn't, that's fine. There's other email I just opened.

Oh, it is. Okay, great. So, maybe it's there. Um, you can see the garage on the right side. Um, and there's the window up there. Let's see if you go to the next one. Yeah. And so from the water, you can see the distance from the window. And you can actually see the window on the left. Um, how far that window is away from the actual window that we'd be looking through and how that window is right next to where the deck extension would be. Go ahead. And the one on the left is the view from the deck extension location. I was up on a ladder, so it's not exactly the same, you know, angle. I just didn't want to go too much higher, but that's right on the corner looking into that window. And on the right side, that's the view from the adjacent window right next to it. So I I you know I'm sure they don't want to have a deck near to them but from a visibility and privacy perspective I don't think there's a whole lot of harm and also from the majority their view is not going to be looking that way they're look their view is going to be looking out to the oh I think there's let's see if there's anything on No thank you again really appreciate your service so I I kind of see this as two separate items the the the stairs, you're you're basically building rebuilding them as they are actually a little bit smaller. You're within the sideyard setback, which is probably why you're here, but you're not getting any bigger. You're not going any closer to the neighbor. And then the other obviously is the extension of the deck. Yes, it's in the 75 ft high water setback. You're not going any closer to the lake. You're not going any clo Well, yes, you're going closer to your neighbor, but you're not in your sideyard setback. So, I guess those are my only comments. Is there any

other like questions for the applicant? So, just to clarify, we can go back Jen I think two slides. Uh third slide. So when you re you said you're going to take care of and eliminate some of the impervious you're talking about removing this particular uh stoop area which would be called the north side uh of the corner and that would be remaining. No zero. No I wish I had a picture of it instead. And I think we can go back to it. You can go back to the original um top like number two where the stairs flare two. He's actually moving those.

So that's the square footage of the keys going. There you go. So uh there you go. So the right side, the right side, the bottom right. You can see how it just plays out. Sure.

That's what we're removing. And you can also see the bumpouts on the deck on the east side. and it kind of bumps out on the top, comes back in, goes back out, and then as you turn the corner, it bumps out. So, we're going to be removing that piece of it to even make it a little less close to the plate. We're talking inches. I mean, it's not like significant, but we're that's what we're doing to remove the impervious surface to net zero with the extension. Gotcha. Any other questions for the applicant? I know you mentioned cables um to have a less and I'm assuming there's going to be glass as well for safety.

Uh that's not the plan. It would be stainless steel cables with you know based on code requirements. So they'd have a certain distance. I can't tell you exactly what it is but 3 in or 2 in whatever it happens to be to be within the code. It will be safe but no one will be sneaking through it. Okay. Anybody else? Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Discussion amongst commissioners. Again, I've kind of to me it's not going any closer to the neighbor in either instance. Not going any closer to the lake. Seems reasonable to me. But I don't know what anybody else seems very reasonable. Yeah. If he had come here and said, I want to, you know, add 1,000 square foot closer to the lake. Different story.

Different story. Right. I think it's quite aesthetically pleasing to be honest. We're really capable. There's a door going out to nowhere right now, right? Yeah. So, um All right. Any other discussion for a variance? Do we can we make the decision on the same meeting or do we need to We can uh at this time I would open it up to the audience. Would anybody like to speak in favor of the proposal? Would anybody like to speak against the proposal? Um, I don't know. I think this is kind of straightforward where we maybe could act on it tonight if anyone wants to make a motion. I'll make a motion to approve. Second has been presented.

We have a motion to approve the variance. Do we have a second? I'll second. All those in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. [Music] Thank you for the clarity and the detail. It was really helpful to have the drawings and the pictures which was very well done. Thank you. [Music]

Next item on the agenda is uh 2050 uh plan amendment N4780 Bell Skull Road Parcel PET 36003 Jack Schaefer Honey Creek Trust. [Music] Hello, my name is Tony Xan from Chemical Engineering. I'm here on behalf of Hunt Creek Trust, Jack Schaefer. Uh Jack has a property. Do you have the the I

Oh, that's fine. Everybody's got a packet. Uh Jack owns um property off of Bell School Road. Uh roughly 236 acres in in East Beach Troy. and then another um 87 acres to the east in the town of Waterford. He's got an existing home site that is his residence uh on the property. Um within your pack of the materials that we provided, I included a kind of an overall map. Um so you see on the property the existing residence due south of that residence is a is a recreational pond. Um we're here today to basically ask for a comp plan amendment. The property is 90 acres in size. What Jack would like to do is to um for planning. He's his wife has passed. Jack is getting to an age where he's really into um trying to figure out, you know, what his property is going to look like for his kids. And one of the things you want to do is create a lot around the house in the adjacent pond to the south. The property right now is 90 acres in size. It's a combination of zoning of A1, C1, C2, and C4. In the A1 zoning, you need 35 acres of A1 property. Uh up A1 actually zone property to create a lot. This 90 acre property has 67 acres of A1. So essentially, he can't do two lots on this 90 acres under the current A1 zone. The only way that he could do the split is if you look in Yeah, that's perfect. Um, the only way that he could do the split is if he took there's an existing C2 zoning that's over the north half of the house. If he extended the C2 zoning

south of the house and over the pond, the C2 zoning is 5 acres. So, he would have a 14 acre parcel for the house and the adjacent pond. the remnant of the property uh is roughly 76 acres and that property would have 35 acres of A1 zoning. So, I'm kind of jumping around comp plan and zoning. I'm I'll kind of hopefully bring it all back around here. So ultimately the next steps after if this would be something that would be acceptable is there would be a certified the endgame of this is a certified survey map on this 90 acre piece to create two lots a 14 1/2 acre lot on the house and the pond and then the again the 7 it would be 75.6 acres for the remnant piece. Um the only way to do the CSM is to do the reszone. The only way we can reszone is do the comp plan amendment. The comp plan, as you can kind of see on the screen, is it all right if I walk away from the microphone?

Yeah, sure. Okay.

As you can see on the screen, there's that little dot of AG2. Um, so ultimately for the comp plan request, we're just asking to extend that AG2, which is to the right of the, you see the big blue, uh, bring the AG2 down to the south, correct? Roughly 9 acres, and then that would give him enough area to reszone that into a lot. So that center piece would ultimately be two lots. We're converting some of the AP to AG2. So that's ultimately the request. Um so today is just the comp plan amendment. Um and then again subject to the feedback we get if it's yes it's something we can work with it would be followed up by a reszone and CSM as long as we get through the county also. So

so my initial concern and I know it's probably a little bit ahead is I'd like to see you know existing proposed. Okay. You know, you're kind of telling us, oh, do this, do this, do this, but I'm not seeing it. Okay. And you I mean, you're the expert. You know, we work together. Yeah. Um, if this is too early to be asking for that, I mean, I guess A1 is kind of we don't like to get rid of any A1 as a general. Now, the remaining piece will still be um you know 75 acres or whatever of A1

for me and I don't want to speak to everybody else. I guess I'd like to see you know here's Sure. Here's what we got. This is the zoning, you know, visually. Okay. Can you do you have this in the agenda packet that you could call on the screen?

So, this is the one that's in your packet also. the big one. Perfect. So, I don't know what's easiest, but if you take that the large one, there's a big kind of. So, there's kind of a big bold black line that's signifying the area that we're asking for the comp plan amendment. That piece would be the southern portion of the lot that's around the house. And I know it's hard to see, but if you go up to the what would be the upper left corner where there's an L1 and an L2, if you continue to go north, and it's I apologize, it's now I'm looking at it's shaded pretty light, but there's a blue dash line, and it says proposed property line. If you continue to go up, and then it'll hit and it'll go it'll go due east under the where it says currently zone C2 in blue. Just do south of that there's a black dash line that says proposed property line that would come over it. It'll hit a solid black line. Go do south then go do east and then come back south again. There's a black dash line that says proposed property line. So essentially that would be the 14.6 acre property when it's all said and done. And I can come over if any.

So right now it's one tax scheme one property 190 acre property. Correct. you don't have a problem splitting off half the house.

Well, so yeah, great great point. The split the line that goes through the house isn't a property line, that's the land use line and zoning line. So it's not a property line. So what we're saying is, hey, the comp plan here, this AG2 that's in red, we're just asking to bring it and cover the bold black line. that allows us to re we would come back for a reszone and we'd be able to reszone this entire property to C2 which is also what C2 from A1

C2 from A1 and our thought process on that is A1's A you know 35 acre right well it's a the prime egg is the land use the the A1 is the zoning fair in our case. He's already has a house. He already has a pond. He's already maintaining a grass grass around it. So, it's essentially a residential lot with all the farm. The rest of it has got, you know, farming and other ponds and whatnot.

When you go to So, that's kind of the zoning part of it. The land use part of it, I did include a soils map. That's a soil capability class. It doesn't may not mean much, but I listed the soils and the numbers on the soils. One is considered like the best for farming. And as the number goes down, it goes from 1 to 8. So eight's kind of like, yeah, it's a soil, but it's not the best. So if you look at, excuse me, if you look at here, the three soils that are within the area that I'm asking about are the MXD2 and the MXC2. And you'll see those are kind of categorized as fours and sixes. One is the best, eight is the worst. So even for like grimeland, I would argue yeah, it's not number one, it's, you know, not the best for the soil class. So those between the way the property is currently being used, you know, what we have for soils, we're not asking for a subdivision. We're not asking for even a road and 10 lots. We're just asking for one lot, you know, to create two lots out of one.

I do have a quick question on that. your your initial discussion was to increase this to I believe it's 14 point some acres was the end result. Yeah, the house lot would be 14.6. The number you see on the paper 9.4 that's just the request for the land use area to be amended and the lot itself would be 14.6 6 and briefly reviewing the um literature of your explanation that the remaining acreage then would be proposed to go back to A1.

It it it is A1. I wouldn't we would not ask to reszone the rest of the property. You have an adjacent property from your proposed property line that is currently zoned C2. Yeah. So, were you looking at possibly trying to amend that and make that so you potentially would make this lot an adjacent lot and under C2 you could build a house here cuz it's more than 5 acres with this or is this going to be encompassed in your other

correct? Yes. So, the whole purpose is to create a 14.6 acre lot over the house in the pond. The other 76, we're not asking for any land use change. We're not asking for any reszone of that. The rest of the property is, you can kind of go around. It's A1, it's, you know, A1, C2, A1. It's kind of a combination, different zoning. So, we the rest of the parcel, we don't want it. We're not asking for anything on the other 76 acres. But you got to understand my question.

Yeah. 73 years from now, You could come back and say, "Okay, well, but I got a C2 over here encompassed within the A1 that you already presented as 70 some acres is going to remain as A1. And now I want to put a residence here. I want to have access and put a residence here cuz I'm allowed to do so. Maybe even two." There was some reference about um even if they would develop it in the future, we would use the existing access roadway that currently exists on the property. You can see some of my hesitation to why are we taking away primate or cultural land and then have these potential conversations for the future.

Understood. Yep. Uh great point about the road. So that he's the existing driveway comes off of Bell School, kind of comes up along the south line that it appears and this it goes here and then this comes around and it comes into here. So essentially again not looking to add more driveways not acting asking that it add more impervious there would be an access easement over that. So again now we're kind of getting to the CSM part of it but you I understand why you need the vision of what it would be to make the decision for this. It would essentially be an access easement to this parcel. This parcel would be basically you know wouldn't have public access. It would be an isolated piece,

but you would have the access easement to it over the existing drive.

To your point, if you guys, if it was tonight, it was no, we don't want to do that. You're right. The C2, you could as long as it's 5 acres in size. If I have 5 acres of C2, I could create a lot over it. I have not we that's not his desire. So, I haven't looked at, hey, this is 10 acres. I could do one lot, two lots. This is still 35 acres of A1, so that could be a third lot. I have not done that, but kind of getting you probably could do three lots today with the way it's zoned and but we're not looking to do that.

So, and I'm not trying to make work for you. I'm not trying to put the cart before the horse. I'm not looking for like a full CSM type. Just again I I I know I was confused. Confused maybe not the right word. on p like you're saying what but on paper I don't know exactly what you're asking for kind of I mean I do but I don't I think it if and everybody anybody else jump in if if you could maybe clarify a little bit better like you know proposed you know existing zoning this will remain I I think that would go a long way and we could you know maybe come back in two weeks and make a decision

again I don't want to jump on anybody else though visually. Is this basically what you're asking is just proposing the 9.4 acres from AP to 82. Correct. So this again this dark area within this dark black that's the land use request. That's the land use from AB to AG2. The AG2 is just extending the current AG2 that's here. Yep.

So the land use side, we're asking to change this from the dark circle from AP to AG2. That would take care of the land use plan. Then we have to go to the county, make sure they're okay with it. If they say yes, then we would come back to you guys and say, "Hey, now we're asking to reszone that area that you just changed.

I can't reszone to C2. I can't resone AP to C2." So that's why I'm really asking the change. So, so I might be jumping the gun a little bit and I know Rich, you're always the one that keeps me in line there because I So, may maybe I'm backpedaling a little bit because if this is more of a, you know, changing the land use plan. Well, I think you're those are legit questions because it's like why am I what's the end game? Right. Right.

My end game is to come back. I have to get you guys first and then I go to the county. And if the county agrees, then my land use plan is changed. That area that's in the black circle is now AG2. Then I can come back and say, "Okay, I want to reszone from A1 to C2." And then you're going to look at the land use plan and say, "Yep, I can have a C2 zoning in an AG2 land use category." So at that point then you if you say yes then I would propose the CSM that we just described.

I think it would be helpful if we knew precisely what the plan amendment proposal is. I I don't see that clearly because that's step one in this process. This is what you're proposing, correct? To revise in the comprehensive plan, right? That would be step one. This black line right here is what we're asking to revise from AP to AG2. Just kind of really So, yeah. So, not making not asking for a zoning change, just

just I cannot ask for a zoning change. Okay. All right. I would love to do everything he wants. So, so I guess if you know if we were to say yes to this tonight, that doesn't mean he's full speed ahead. He has to come back with to us with that zoning change and then with a CSM again, right? Or approval from the county to I could leave here, go to the county and the county says no. I think our concern initially is that, you know, we don't want to say yes and all a sudden we just decided That's no longer a one, but you're not asking for a zoning change.

And I can't. I would feel more comfortable if there was clearly a textual uh clarification plan. They didn't get I did a project narrative. Did you guys get Yeah, I got the project. Yeah. Okay. Can I just ask with the timing because county only sees these requests once a year. If we don't get this approved by the town board until September, will meet that time? I I I won't. And and unfortunately, as she said, the county allows one swing at this a year.

Yep. So, we asked if we could actually we asked if I could be in front of you guys in September and she responded. The county lady responded and said she needs all of her paperwork by September 4th. Right. I'm just saying that I'm not rushing. I'm not I'm just saying that's the the cards we were dealing. Understood. So, that's why I'm here tonight. Sure. Any other questions for the applicant? I know there's a lot of paperwork. Certainly, you know, as far as the proposed lot, you know, and I can just go ahead.

Well, my one question is, so around this pond here, you know, we're talking about how part of his dwelling is in this area that you want to change in the comprehensive plan, but is this cut for hay or anything? Is this being used semi-aggriculturally at all, or is this cut? That's cut just lawn. Correct. Okay. So that's all lawn or pond. Correct. Chances are it'll never be an agricultural one.

And this is the again, and I apologize for this layer line, but the property is the dark black. This would be the proposed CSM. We'd come up this line right here. You come across right here, here, here, here, and then you'd be back. This piece is 14 6 acres. access would be through this. Sure. Accessing. So we got we kind of Rich kind of do have the endgame sort of I mean not with not with CSM detail of course but we still obviously have another crack at it if you will. Right. All he's asking for is

Is there Is there any other questions of the applicant? All right. Thanks. I'm not necessarily I don't really care if if there's deadlines kind of but again kind of seems reasonable to take this first step. Yeah, I'm okay with the first step I think cuz he's got to come back to us. Correct. With with the details that I was looking for like right you know you know what what are we splitting off what zoning is it? you know, but he's not asking for that tonight cuz he can't he can't do it until

So, real quick, uh Tony, if I could jump back and ask you a question. What is the acreage that you're asking for to be removed out of the 9.4 from I think it's on that big right here. 9.4 from AP to A. Okay. I missed that note. Okay. So it's not

like when you talk zoning, you'll never reszone something and create a spot zoning, right? But on the land use side of things, there's clumps because INRA goes with wooded areas. You know, SW goes with pond areas. So you'll see isolated land use plans. Even in this case, I'm asking to extend an AG2 that already exists or have the, you know, I guess you could probably even go back to when they they do these land use plants updates every 20 years, I think it is, you know, and it's they're doing it generally of the whole communitywide. I think if they would really focus on this property, the AG2 probably would have come further south to cover the house because why is half the house

that's a weird thing that the house is half see and half a right and then when we come to the zoning again I'm not asking I'm not spot zoning this property saying hey give me something funky to allow me to do this. I'm I would be asking to extend the C2 to the south. Again, just expanding the C2 over a Sure. residential properties. Sure. All right. Thanks. So based on on on that information and knowing that these are essentially general maps for the next 25 years to to look forward to of you know what do we see to be like

right knowing that we have layers of it has to go to the county and they may have very more restrictive uh opinions than we do um not knowing um because the verbiage that's in the state statute says you have to show undo hardship to be able to change something from the master use plan. I think we have multiple layers um of protection, not to mention another revisit before we would change the zoning that M's asking for,

right? Um so I agree with you that though we should never be bound to a timeline um but with the extremely circumstances that they will meet once a year um I think it would be prudent to at least give them the opportunity uh to have the future conversations. Sure. And um revisit there's multiple layers to the onion uh before this gets over. Yep.

Other discussion amongst commissioners. All right. I would open it up to the audience. Would anybody in the audience like to speak in favor of the proposal? Would anybody like to speak against the proposal? Um yeah, I guess I couldn't couldn't have said it better myself. So, um would anybody like to make a proposal or a motion?

Can I just have one more point? Um, they talked about the A1 zoning minimum of 35 acres and so I was in my head when I saw that like 35 and 35 now it's like 15 and 7 or 14 and 76, right? Because the we're going to have more A1 than 35 acres, right? Correct. So the whole property is 90 plus, right? So don't quote me on the numbers but the remaining A1 will still be 75 right double compliant

with just so again there's a lot of numbers the entire property is 90 acres while that 90 67 of it is A1 so but in A1 zoning it has to have 35 acres of A1 zoned property so since I only have 67 7. I can't divide this lot in any manner and have two lots that have 35 acres of A1 zoning. Now, Commissioner Neielsson brought up a thing about the C2. That's different because I only need five acres. So, the long and short of it is yes, the residential lot will be 14.6 acres in a C. This is future. If you the C2's resoning granted, it's 5 acre lot size. I would have a 14.6 6 acre lot of sites. All the remnant property would be the second lot. That's 75.6 acres. And I would have roughly

A1. Yeah. I have like all A1 acres of A1, 10 acres of C2, some acres of in the SW pond. Okay. Thank you. All right. Then would anybody like to make a motion? I'll make a motion that we approve the comprehensive plan for parcel number PET3 600 03. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I second. All those in favor? I

opposed. Motion carries. [Music] All right. Next item on the agenda is a variant um N114 Oakwood Lane parcel POP 000010. Is that supposed to be James? James Hubert. [Music]

Good evening. My name is Michael. I'm with Deep Water Partners. the architect on the project for which we're requesting a variance for the demolition and partial reconstruction of an existing boat house and patio uh located um within the shoreyard setback at property located at north 9114 lane. Um the proposed work includes demolition of the existing boat house and patio both located within the shoreyard setback. uh reconstruction of approximately half of the existing boat house footprint, maintaining its existing location to the southeast property line and construction of a smaller patio at top the portion of the original boat house footprint that we are not building back um rather than its former location in the yard. Uh the reason for this variance request is due to um ambiguity in the R1 residential shoreland district zoning guidelines. While the guidelines prohibit patios and shoreyards, they do not specifically address rebuilding back a patio and a newly built uh footprint in the boat house. Um, and the variance is necessary because we're proposing to rebuild the patio on a portion of that footprint. And this is considered a change of use according to Walworth County. Um, and patios are classified as prohibited structures in shoreyards due to their location within a 75 foot shoreyard setback and their proximity to the shoreline. So, we're proposing a carefully considered design that reduces the boat house footprint. So, we're reducing it from 396 ft to 198 square ft. The patio that we're rebuilding back is being reduced in size from 239 ft to 180 ft. And the new patio will be constructed at top a portion of the boat house footprint that's not being rebuilt. So

we're then um removing essentially 88 square ft of impervious surface which um is made up of um a slab uh landscape pavers and existing main street walls. Um so then pvious surface areas reduce them by 559 square ft which would essentially improve water management on the property. Um the site's view corridor will also be improved from 55% to 36% um maximizing visual ecological destruction. And then we also note uh a couple other properties uh north 9102, north 9110, North 9148, North 9152, and North 9162 Oakwood Lane, which all have boat houses that are currently positioned near the property line. uh in contrast to our existing bullet house which is more centrally located within the property and the proposed design maintains consistency with the character of the shoreline development in the area. So just to point out um the footprint here. So the existing boat house is the full gray area here and then there's existing concrete patio to the north and then there's a smaller patio to the south. So, what we're essentially asking to do is to tear down the existing boat house, build back half of it, but only the portion that's to the southeast, and then take um what was the existing patio and rebuild it adjacent to the portion that is not being rebuilt.

Let's go on to the next page that's proposed. Yeah. Yeah.

Yep. So, the lower black box is the new portion, the proposed patio. So you can see that dash line um that's existing footprint of the the boat house and then the patio to the the north which we would remove. So for our variance three-step test one we have unique property limitations. The current boat house and patio extend into the center of the property where neighboring boat houses are kept along the property line maintaining a larger view corridor. So, our intent is to open up that view corridor by removing the existing boat house and building it back smaller but set off to the side of the property line. Um, so granting the brains support a more balanced and consistent trail development approach with open central view corridor similar to the neighboring properties. The unnecessary hardship is the strict enforcement of the ordinance which would present unnecessary burdensome restrictions because we would be allowed to maintain the existing patio location while reducing the size of the boat house. However, we're simply just asking to shift over the patio onto the area of the boat house that we're not rebuilding. And there's no harm to the public interest. The proposed development would maintain the existing westside setback of the boat house and therefore not harm any neighboring properties. It would reduce the amount of imperous surface area and therefore improve site drainage. Um there's no detriment to any adjacent properties, the community or the general public. Granting the government would create a new space within the shoreyard setback and therefore maintain the spirit of the zoning ordinance.

All right. Thanks. Any questions of the applicant? All right. Thanks. Um to me, they're taking a bigger boat house, not going any closer to the water, not going any closer to their neighbor, making it smaller, and making a smaller patio. It's already there. They're improving it, making it smaller. That's my take on it. Any other comments?

Yeah. Um just the the variance request is centered around the boat house and the patio, not the garage or any of the other things are being changed. Correct. [Music] And the concrete on the north side of the existing and the south side will be removed. Correct. My understanding is the boat house then would come to the edge of that existing concrete on the south.

Yes. So we we have a patio there. We just want to move it over and what we were getting from Ward County saying that we're changing the use. But our argument is we already have a patio there. We just want to move it over. Yep. Yep. Shrink it. Shrink it. Right. Kind of a unique question. What what's the allowed uh impervious layer on the lot? I don't know. The impervious is getting less with this proposal.

It it is and and I like the fact that it is getting less. I'm just I I reviewed everything and I didn't catch this till right now that you're actually tearing down this residence, building a new residence, making a concrete driveway, concrete patio. Currently, it's all gravel and a smaller footprint. And that's where I'm just curious. Um, even though they're reducing the existing boat house footprint, is it possible with this proposal that was not reviewed before because it's outside the 75 ft setback that now the impervious layer is is actually increasing overall, which isn't our jurisdiction to discuss. This is just me speaking out loud,

right? Um the proposal that was presented to us was to reduce pvious layer. So whoever approved this plan before you know it was on them. If they would not do anything certainly in previous layer you could increase more right um that was just my my initial um review that I didn't quite see before. But no it's it's I think it's aesthetics wise I think it's going to help uh line of sights um for someone that's on the on the lake. We like to to minimize some of those structures, especially if it's been there a while. And I did take a drive down there to um to see some something that's new. It's not often that someone comes to us and asks for a subtraction.

Isn't that you know, isn't that the truth? Um a question quick question for you. Is your proposed patio going to be brick pavers or is that going to be a concrete slab? Um we are proposing stone. Okay. Any other discussion amongst commissioners? All right, I would open it up to the audience. Would anybody in the audience like to speak in favor of their proposal? Would anybody like to speak against the proposal? Um, to me, this seems very reasonable and I think we could act on it tonight if anybody would want to make a motion.

Absolutely. I'll make a motion that uh we approve the proposal as presented to us for partial number POP 010. We have a motion to approve the variance. Do we have a second? I'll second. All those in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Is there any other business amongst commissioners? Any other public comment? Then I would take a motion to adjurnn. Thank you. I would move that rejourn. I have a motion to adjurnn. Do we have a second? Second. All those in favor? I

opposed. We're adjourned. Thank you. [Music]