Zoning & Land Regulation Committee - Regular Meeting

The 04/23/2026 Dane County Board of Adjustment public hearing is called to order. Members of the Board of Adjustment are George Corrigan at Town of Dunn, Arlen Kai, Town of Oregon, both present here, as well as myself, Al Long. And remotely, we have Sue Stutz from the town of Barrie, and Alex Elkins will be sitting in from the town of Primrose, who's our alternate member but will be sitting in tonight. Travis Leeser from the town of Rutland appears to be unavailable tonight, so we will have a quorum of five composed of those those five. Dane County interim zoning administrator Hans Hilbert will serve as staff to the board of adjustment this evening.

Notice of this public hearing was published in the Wisconsin State Journal on April 9 and April 16. Did I get those dates right?

Yep.

2026. This meeting is being recorded electronically. The minutes of the meeting will show the names of those appearing. A copy of the electronic recording will be available on the county legislative tracking system. Hans, at this point, could you briefly explain how we will be conducting this meeting virtually?

Sure. We have one attendee in the the meeting, and that's our second variance of the night, Jacob Swank. So when we get to his portion of the meeting, we'll pull him up as a a panelist, and he'll be allowed to speak and share his video. If others come on, we'll

Okay.

Readdress that.

Right. Thanks, Hans. Now we're on to the public comment section. For any item not listed on the agenda, if there's any member of the public feeling they wanna make a comment about anything, this would be your opportunity. Is there anyone Hans?

Not seeing anybody. Alright.

Then we will move on to consideration of the minutes. We'll start with minutes of the 03/26/2026 public hearing.

I'll move to approve.

All right. George moves to approve. Is there any discussion on the minutes as presented? Hearing none, all in favor of approving the minutes of the 03/26/2026 public hearing signify by saying aye. Aye.

I'm gonna abstain because I was not part of that.

Meeting. Alex abstain abstain.

I also am abstaining because I was not in attendance.

Okay. So we've got three in favor. Alright. Minutes are approved. Then comes the minutes of the 04/16/2026 site inspection.

Move to approve.

Okay. Is there any discussion on the minutes as presented of the site inspection for April 16? I'm not hearing anything. All in favor of approving the minutes of the 04/16/2026 site inspection as presented, signify by saying aye. Aye. I

abstain because I wasn't present.

Okay. Three in favor and two two abstaining. So the minutes are approved. Alright. Let me come to public hearing for variance appeals. Hans, would you read the notice and present the facts of the first appeal before us?

Yes. I will. First appeal tonight is appeal 3741, bill by Ted and Peggy Gunderson for a variance from the minimum required setback and maximum viewing and access corridor width as required by chapter 11 o three parent two parent a one and chapter 11 o four parent four a one of the Dean County Court of Ordinances to permit stabilization and access to the shoreline at 4284 Jordan Drive in Lot 10 of the first block of Brixton Park Platte in Section 8 of the town of Dunn. Aaron Falkowski of Quam Engineering is acting as their agent. The property is located in the SFR single family residential zoning district.

We had acknowledgment of the variance request by the Town of Dunn from March 17 and action this Tuesday, and the minutes of their recommendation of approval are at your places. Existing use of the property, principal use is a single family residential. The current residence was constructed in 1998. The property is bound by Jordan Drive in Lake Wabisa. The topography drops 28 feet from its high point to the ordinary high watermark of the lake.

The steep slope to the lake appears to have a number of previous existing or existing and failing retaining systems, but is currently exhibiting significant erosion. The property currently shares access to the lake via a stair system located on the adjacent property. The owners propose to address the eroding slope and install their own access to the lake. They propose to cure the erosion of the steep slopes by stabilizing with a combination of systems, including the construction of a boathouse, retaining walls, and a stairway along with revegetation of the area. Zoning notes, boathouses and walkways or stair systems up to five feet wide for purposes of access to the water are defined as exempt structures and not subject to the shoreline setback.

Retaining walls are not included in the definition of exempt structures and are therefore required to satisfy the shoreline setback, which would not allow retaining walls within the vegetative buffer zone being within 35 feet of the ordinary high watermark. The existing retaining walls that are nonconforming to the shoreline setback are permitted by Wright to be repaired or replaced within their existing size and location. Exempt structures are required to be located within the access and viewing core corridor, which is defined as 35% of the lot width. History on the property include the 1998 permit for the residents, a 2020 permit for a 300 square foot paver patio, and there was no violation history found on the property. Variants being requested are, the minimum shoreline setback, which is required to be 75 feet.

The proposed setback is nine feet, meaning a variance of 66 feet. And, also, a variance to the access and viewing corridor width, which is required to be 35% or 14 feet. They're requesting 42.5% or 17 feet for a variance of 7.5% or three feet.

Okay. Thank you, Hans. Does anybody have any questions for Hans at this point?

Does the ordinance address the issue of the exempt allowed exempt structures ex what happens if they exceed the viewing corridor? Does it address that anywhere?

In a in their nonconforming sense, that would fall into a category where they could be replaced, repaired within their existing footprints. But it doesn't. The ordinance is gray on any sort of grandfathering in of an existing width or, like, containing existing structures within a corridor.

That's all I have. Okay. Any other questions for Hans?

Hans, I was not able to see the town of Dunn's decision on this. Can you share what they concluded?

They have a number of notes, but the motion was to find that variance appeal thirty seven forty one meets the standards enumerated in chapter 11 and thus to recommend approval of variance to the Dane County Board of Adjustment.

Okay. That's for both variances?

They had a separate motion that reads almost identical for the for both requests in this variance. Yes.

Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions, Alex or

Arnold? Alex, if you're trying to talk, we can't hear you.

I freak I forget. Alright. Thank you. I appreciate it, George. So, Hans, a question for you is, other than the proposed plan that they have, do you see any alternate other alternatives to stabilize the erosion that you're seeing? And, you know, is there any other options that you could see would work?

This is about as steep as a grade that we see on the lakeshore. I I think short of, you know, backing up the the grade well into the developable portion of the lot, some sort of terracing. I I I don't think that it would be feasible to shore this up in a nonstructural way, maintaining the existing development pattern of this property and the adjacent properties.

K. Thank you.

Alright. Anything, Arlen? No. Okay. With that, we'll move on to allow the applicant to provide, written information or oral testimony. Come on up and state your name for for the record. And, generally, you'll be given about five minutes to provide your testimony. You can read something or or just testify any way you see fit. But

First of I'm Ted Gunnarsson. I'm a property owner. My wife is out of town, so she wasn't able to join us.

Erin Falkowski with Quantum Engineering.

Okay. Well, first of I thank all you all all you community members for coming out and actually seeing the property. It's really it's a it's the pictures, don't think, do it justice in terms of the steepness and the grade that's out there and everything else. You know, I think our key points here is that, you know, we we first and foremost, we don't have our own access to the to the lake. Mhmm.

And we're sharing that access with our neighbors, but that's not an informal agreement. So there is no easement or anything else. And so this will rectify that situation by giving a access point to from our lot. Second of all, it's it's really kind of a hardship here because of that access and also because we're very concerned about the erosion on the site. If you if you saw the site on the western end of it, the the existing walls are pretty much holding, and you can see that that side of the, of the lot or that, embankment is somewhat stable.

But on the eastern side of it, there there appears to be significant erosion. We've literally my wife and I have sat out in our backyard at night, and all of sudden, we'll hear a rock or a boulder roll down the hill and and land on the lake shore. So I believe that the, that the existing walls went all the way across the lot at one time, but have just been failing. So I think that, it's necessary that we do something to control the erosion, and I think that this is a good plan to get it. You know?

And then the, the two the two variances we're seeking, one is a slight, variance to, in terms of our access corridor to accommodate for stairs to get down there. And then the walls themselves, you know, it to me, it seems like we're ex replacing the existing walls that are already there that are failing. So there are walls on the hillside as noted in our survey maps and those sort of things. And finally, just the the the aesthetics of the site. That hillside is covered with weeds and thorns and thistles, and it's just not very aesthetically pleasing and gets very significantly overgrown.

And, for me personally to maintain that, I literally crawl on that in my hands and knees in the summer to take care of that property. Aaron, I forget. More to

add? I think you

I think you summarized it pretty well. I think the yeah. Just to reiterate, with the walls, I think we believe that's the best way to stabilize that hillside, from further loss of sediment. And then it's also, if they do, have have the variance approved here, I think it would also help with just just controlling the sediment loss into the lake and providing some kind of benefit also for the lake itself and not just them.

So Could you just briefly describe the walls in terms of just just in general what you're what you would propose before Sure. That situation?

Yeah. So the proposed walls would be, like, the Wapon stone, which is similar to a limestone, except there's a more dense stone and less less likely to flake off. It's got a harder surface to it. So they would be maybe similar in in size. Like, each of these pieces would be similar in size to, like, a limestone wall, but it would be a more dense, more dense wall.

In terms of the scale of the wall, how how

Sure. So at the starting at the, at the bottom of the hill, they would have, like, a three foot tall wall. And then on the top of that, the, the slope would slope up, to the next wall. The the wall in the middle would be six feet tall. And then after that, the grade would slope up from there to the bottom of the next wall, and that next wall up at the top would be another six foot tall wall.

And then on the on the house side of the wall, the we're proposing to have an inlet to collect runoff from the yard between the house and the top of the slope to safely convey water to that inlet and then via pipe system to the riprap shoreline versus having the water draining over the top of the wall.

Is there runoff that comes onto the lot from from elsewhere, or is it pretty much just you're dealing with what generated on the lot?

Yeah. It's pretty much self contained on the property. They might have some backyard drainage from a neighbor, but it's not it's not that much. So it's mostly contained to the property. And and what's going back there would be the I believe they will have a a rock trench for the house, runoff, the roof runoff, and that will also drain to this inlet. And then that would that inlet would be draining to the lake with a storm pipe system, and then it would be protected at the shoreline with the riprap.

Does anybody have any questions for the applicants here?

George? What what's the, grade between the walls? You mentioned it slopes upward between the first wall and the second wall and the second and the third.

Yeah. So we've got and then we've got so I I would have to check our plan again, but I I believe it might be a 20% slope.

Anything else, George? Any any questions, Arlen?

Yeah. Why you've got the retaining walls on with on the property line, and yet the retaining walls do not go to the property line on the West. Can you tell me why you don't do that? Or how how do you resolve that that issue as your the grading that's shown here is a it's just showing the continuous contours and not really the revised contours behind the retaining walls. At least I'm not seeing them. Sure. Yes. So the Oh, wait. I there it is on the other page. Okay.

But it's still where is the why isn't the retaining wall going to the property line?

Yeah. So, if you're looking at the preliminary grading plan, that would be sheet c dash two. That probably has the best, like, aerial view, and maybe that's the one that's in front of you there. But, I think what what we're proposing to do there would be to stop just short of the property line, because there is a no grade change within five feet of the property line. So requirement, so we're looking to meet that.

I think there might be some, like, with that top wall, like, where it's the closest to the property line there, we could probably take a look at that and make something that looks similar to it. I think we're just trying to provide a little buffer to the property line by stopping it a little short. And the the intention with that one wall, I think, along the west side is to match the existing slope at that point at that five feet from the property line.

Okay. So you're the plan c dash two one has a shading?

That's correct. That that shows the proposed wall.

So there there's a wall down the length of the the property?

That's correct.

Yeah. So that's not shown on this plan?

Right. So architectural would need to be updated, for that. That's one thing I did notice on there. But, yes, the intention is to have a wall on the west side to, match the slope, the existing slope.

Anything else, Arlen?

Guess I have a question, Hans, on the on this viewing the viewing corridor as to it's the combination of the staircase and the proposed boathouse that's wider even though the staircase is within the five feet that's allowed.

Right. By, definition, exempt structures have to be located within the access and viewing corridor. So if you took just the boathouse, you would have that located in the corridor, and it would meet this. But by putting the staircase along the side of it, that's how it exceeds the the maximum width. So you have a portion of the staircase that's outside of what would typically be allowed by the ordinance.

Does it does it matter that given given the height of this this 28 feet edge, the boathouse and everything would would be wouldn't be the view shed wouldn't be affected. The literal view shed would not be affected by by this visually. Right? Nothing is going above the the top of that of of that property.

But, yeah, from, like, the house perspective, you wouldn't have anything being blocked. Part of the purpose of the access and viewing corridor is it's specific to the vegetated buffer zone, so it's also limiting where vegetation can be removed from from the property without requiring an alternate access plan. It I I will say that it's not uncommon for existing lake lots developed like this to have access in the form of a stair system that exceeds the width for lots that have existing boathouses on them just because they're not all tied right in together with the with the boathouse. So what's being requested here would not seem unusual, especially in this Jordan Drive neighborhood.

Okay. Thank you.

Anything more, Arlen?

Nope.

Alex, any anything from you?

The question that I have that I haven't heard an answer to would be the time frame that it would take from the start of the project to completion. You know, moving big stones like that on a steep slope, there's, of course, an erosion component, but that would probably be addressed by, Dane County zoning. But the time frame, you know, in terms of the the spirit of harm to the public, you know, you'd hate to see a whole summer's work kinda take away what the neighbors have to enjoy on their property. So what would be the time frame for completion?

Well, we don't have a specific contractor as of yet. Now we've had other contractors come out and, look at other different ways to go. What most of them said, you know, the actual, like, excavation and that sort of thing would be four weeks plus or minus four to six weeks maybe to do the whole thing. So, you know, the intention is is if we can find a contractor that can do it, they do it yet this year before winter. So, we would get right on it and

mitigate. My question a little better, and you you answered exactly the question I asked, but I didn't ask it properly. I think the boathouse component the construction of that is significantly separate, and I can understand how that could take a while. But the actual terracing that you're talking about, the the side hill, is it four to six weeks essentially for that component?

Yeah. Because, like I said, we we've had other contractors out there about just doing stairways and retaining walls, and that's kind of the time frame they quoted us.

K.

Like you said, the boathouse is a separate issue. You know, three of the four walls at a boathouse will be retaining walls, and it's just our builder then finishing off the exterior of

that.

But but that won't disturb any soils for that portion of it.

Thank you.

Anymore? I I guess I'm I'm assuming they would come at that from a barge with a crane rather than I mean, they really couldn't fit it around your house. Right? They'd most of the time I've seen walls done like that, it's been with a barge from the lakeside.

Yeah. That's yet to be determined. You know, there's only 10 feet between ours and our neighboring house. Yeah. And so that'll limit the type and and type of equipment that you could bring out there.

Anything more from anybody? Alright. Well, thank you for that. Do we have any input from the zoning administrator?

We do. I was contacted probably half a year ago about this property, and we arranged a site visit to see what the options were. Typically, when I get contacted about placing retaining walls in this area, it's a very scripted conversation that's very specific that we don't allow them within the shoreline setback. We do allow the replacement, and it's very common that we issue permits for the replacement of existing retaining walls. They don't last forever.

They fail over time, but that's been addressed in the ordinance, as a right to the property owner to to maintain what they already have. I I think that this is a site that some sort of structural retention would be required to curb the erosion that's occurring right now. In visiting the site, it's one of the steepest slopes that I've seen on this shoreline, and it's definitely apparent that there was some sort of structural component in place holding this together that's been failing over the last probably couple of decades. So I I believe that the intent of the ordinance is that this can be stabilized with a structural solution determining what that exact footprint and size and location, I I feel is impossible at this time. While it's not necessarily completely abandoned, it's just impossible to determine what that is.

And I think that the engineer has put together a plan that mimics what's being retained there at this time while implementing the right to the landowner to have access to the lake and have a boathouse, which is permitted under shoreland zoning.

Alright. Any questions for Hans? Arun? Nope. Okay.

Then we will

see.

Do we have any interested parties that, care to testify?

The only other attendee is for another variant still, and I'm not seeing any hands go up.

So Alright. Then we'll pass on that. No need to questions. Any there? The appellate or excuse me.

The applicant is normally given an opportunity for a rebuttal, but it doesn't seem as though that would be necessary at this point here. Maybe we'll just last question. Anyone have any questions for the applicant last chance? Not hearing any. Let's call the hearing on this application closed then, and we'll open it up to board discussion and deliberation on the matter.

Can I go? Sure. I I just wanted to put on the record, I did not attend the site visit, but I did visit the site on my own. And and I agree with everything that's been said about the the steepness of it. I also, attended the hearing at the town of Dunn, and listened to the the town board's take on this, and, I was happy to see that they used our standards, and actually addressed each point.

I I don't think there's any other alternative than a retaining wall for this property. Letting it go, I think, would be worse for the public than than fixing it. And how you fix it, you know, there there's many ways you could. This seems like a very reasonable one. And and when I look at our standards,

you know,

is there hardship? Yes. I think the the hardship is losing your your property, and it's it's not through the making of the of the applicant. It's it's the unusual steepness of the slope. And from a public interest standpoint, there is a there is an issue with, you know, the the public, losing enjoyment to the lake, but in the long run, there'll be more enjoyment with less less erosion.

And, I think, LWRD is well suited in making sure that things don't erode into the lake during construction, and they they've have have standards, that will have to be met by this project kind of outside of us. But but they they know how to take care of that. So, overall, I think this is good for the public interest, and it it meets our standards. So I'm I would be in favor of of granting the variance with with respect to the wall. With respect to the viewing corridor, you know, there there's structures that that are exempt and because of the narrowness of this lot.

And, again, it's not because of the applicant's own making. It's the just happens to be the lot that's so narrow. They don't get the full width of of that. Their their exempt structures can't fit in the in the viewing corridor, and this is not trying to make a a triple wide staircase. It's just the the size that anyone else with a 10 foot larger lot would be think it'd be about 10 feet. Would be able to have maybe be 15 feet larger. So I would be in favor of that variance as well.

So would you be willing to make that into a motion? Sure.

I gotta get back to the page that, it says the variance specific variances. It's a little slower when I scroll up versus

flip through.

You have it with me. So

I I make a motion that the, a variance be granted for 66 feet from the minimum shoreline setback and a variance be granted of, three feet for the viewing corridor. For the application? For the application appeal 3741.

Alright. And we've heard George's rationale for that. Anything to add, George, in terms of your reasons for it? Any fur any other discussion?

Yes. Arlen. Yeah. I was in being out there and viewing this, I was concerned at one time. It was was this a self imposed problem of grading out to just to give a flat yard to the house and then causing a very steep grade.

This very steep grade has been there for a very long time in looking at the archaeological remains of the stairway and retaining wall next next door. So I'm I'm looking at something that's been there for quite for a while longer than the current owner has had, so we don't have a self imposed issue on the the slope. So I'm in support of the motion, George's motion for both, on both, both variances.

Okay. Sue or Alex?

I I can, support both motions. I think George, George's reasoning was very well thought out. The additional comments that Arlen has given was further supportive. If the town of Dunne's, approval of both of them and, the zoning administrators, input all suggest that this this will be an improvement to the property, and it will help maintain the the lake quality. And, I think it's a a good investment, and it's, it's well thought out. So I would be in favor of it as well.

Hey, Alex?

I'm in favor of it. I think everything has been said very, very well, so I won't duplicate it.

Okay.

I do wanna make one more comment. It doesn't go to the vote, but just that if if the meeting at the town of Dunn, it was suggested that there might be native plantings put in on the the terraces, and I'm all in favor of that. It's much better for the lake, and and it's really not here to say you have to do it, but I'm certainly hopeful you would. So

Okay. I'm Can I

make one comment? Sure. Sure. Do with that on that same topic. So, my question about time frame, I'm hoping that you'll your contractors will be very respectful of neighbors. They have very expensive properties and probably would like to enjoy them in the evening and on weekends. So, you know, in the spirit of not causing other problems to the public, I hope you would encourage them to be respectful of times when their families will be home.

K. Like like they've said, George kind of summarized things very crisply in terms of our standard. It seems like an unnecessary hardship given the nature of this lot not to not to give them options, reasonable options for shoring things up. And, this is about as, unique a property in terms of limitations as I remember walking on. When you get down below looking up, you see just how unique it is, and it seems to measure up to that standard easily.

And the harm to public interest, again, that seems pretty evident that not being able to repair something that is failing in a reasonable manner seems to fly in the face of being in the public interest. So I can support the motion for all the reasons given. Anything further from anyone? Hans, could you read the motion before us?

Motion by Corrigan to grant 66 feet of shoreline setback relief and three feet of access and viewing corridor relief for appeal thirty seven forty one.

Okay. You've heard the motion. We've had the discussion. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. That looks unanimous, and, that passed five zero.

So You'll have one year to apply for a short term zoning permit. Aaron's very familiar with how to do that, so I'm sure it'll be soon.

Gotta get a contractor.

I'll get the permit first, and then then your variance will be secure. Alright.

Hans, would you read the notice and and present the facts of the second appeal?

Thank you for it.

I will. Just have that up, but now I gotta

And the folks are with us online?

Yeah. Jacob Swank is in attendance. Appeal thirty seven forty two, appeal by Jake Swank on behalf of Stefan and Julie Schwartzmiller, who are the owners of the property for a variance of the minimum required setback to a highway as required by chapter 10.102 para nine a two d of the Dane County code of ordinances to permit the removal and replacement of a single family residence at 2992 Wabisa Avenue being Lot 1 Of Block 2 Of the Wabisa Beach Platte in Section 5 of the town of Dunn. It's included in the s f r o eight single family residential zoning district. The same copy of the town of Dunn minutes are in front of you with a recommendation finding that the variance appeal thirty seven forty two meets the standards enumerated in the Dane County code of ordinance and thus recommend approval of variance to the board of adjustment.

The existing use of the property, the applicant proposes to purchase the property for redevelopment. Property contains a single family residence, a detached garage, and a boathouse. It's a corner lot bound by Wabisa Avenue and an undeveloped 2nd Street right of way. The applicant proposes to remove the existing residence and detached garage and reconstruct a single family residence. Loaning notes, the typical setback required for a front property line for a lot platted prior to the adoption of the county zoning ordinance is 20 feet, but the ordinance provides an exception for corner lots.

The setback along the long side of a corner lot is reduced to one fifth of the lot depth, but no less than 12 feet. So a little bit of a typo in my staff report here related to should be a mention that there's been variances granted on the North Side of the same right of way to 2nd Street for the property. And at that time, that property was required to get a permanent easement for using the right of way as their setback. History of this particular property in 1974, there was a permit for the addition to the front of the residence in 1997, a permit for a deck addition to the residence in '98, permit for the detached garage. Then a little duplicate language about the property on the north side of 2nd Street right away as previously seen variances to the required setback.

In particular, in 2000, appeal 3085, the board of adjustment granted 2.9 feet of relief from the setback to 2nd Street to permit a detached garage. And then in 1991, appeal 2196, the board of adjustment granted with conditions 10.3 feet of relief to the setback to 2nd Street to permit the new residents at that time. There's no violation history found on the property. So the variance being requested to allow the single family residence is to the minimum required setback from the right of way of a town highway. Required is 12 feet.

The proposed is 7.4 feet. Variance needed is therefore 4.6 feet.

Okay. Thank you, Hans. Any questions for Hans on this one?

Just to for me, a clarification that the variance is for the setback from 2nd Street, not from Obese Avenue. Right?

That's correct. All of the variances that I either mentioned were previously issued for the other property or the request for this one are specific to 2nd Street, which is the undeveloped right away.

Thank you.

Okay. Anything from anyone else? Not hearing anything. Alright. And we'll move along and let the applicant provide information or testimony on the matter. And, as he's joining or they're joining us digitally, Hans, you wanna kind of

Thanks for that reminder.

And, again, they'll have approximately five minutes to provide their testimony.

Hello? Can you hear me? Sorry. I had you rejoined.

Yes.

Great. Yeah. Thank you, Hans, for outlining that, and thank you for the consideration for the the variance here today.

Could you state your name just for so we got on the record?

Yeah. My name is Jacob Swank.

Okay. Thank you.

The proposal to to redevelop this property, there's two nonconforming structures on it right now with the current house and with the detached garage. Any any re alterations of that of either those structures would require us to to be in conforming to that 12 foot foot setback from 2nd Street. The combination of the 12 foot on 2nd Street plus the five foot on the other side as required setback for an SFR o eight what'll leave us a 23 foot, buildable footprint, which is was barely the width of a two car garage, a standard two car garage. So, would be very tight, would cause harm to the neighbors to create the same functional property, would have to require a very deep and narrow property, creating additional, viewing blockage for the the other public and challenges with the neighbors there. The request that we are requesting with the 4.6 was the minimum alternative that we thought, as you heard that there was a much larger variance granted to the property to the north of 2nd Street as we're trying to to minimize the the variance request the variance, requested, and it isn't down to the standard, five foot that most SFR o eight that are noncorner lots would would experience.

Okay. Could you have a stab at summarizing it in terms of our three standards that, in terms of what you're what you're requesting?

Yeah. So from a a hardship standpoint, the uniqueness of the the lot of only having the having the unapproved 2nd Street plus the restrictions from the lake on the other side would prevent our our buildable footprint that is reasonable for for most standards. So that's the uniqueness from a a hardship standpoint of the the the lot there of those two two setbacks and unique requirements for the properties there and ensuring no harm to the neighbor or to the neighbors. The, current proposed home would be less obstructive, less intrusive in terms of a total footprint on the lot than a creating another functional home that would meet the standard 12 foot and five foot setback that would be required there.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for mister Swank? George? Arlen? Arlen?

Yes. I'm looking at the site plan. We have a standard that we if there is any variance granted, we need to have it be minimum. And I'm looking at the setback on the existing neighbor side to the south, it appears. It's to the south.

I believe it's a five foot setback is, required. Correct. And you're starting off with a five foot four and then a six foot one. You're kind of tilted on the site. Is there any reason why you cannot be having, say, minimize your request by having it be at the required five foot setback?

Yeah. The only corners of the property that would impact this or require the 4.6 variance would be that that corner where it's at 5.2. So in in terms of that, we we can move that up to five to to request it, but the with the request of the variance, we're trying to minimize impact to neighbors as well and not build right onto that five foot setback line there to allow more more walkway and with with the neighbors, but could could adjust that down to five feet and request a, I think it was a a 4.3 then setback is what would need to be needed.

K.

Anything else, Norman?

I think that's a primary one.

Okay. Sue or or Alex? Or to anything further? No, no questions. I guess that's that's it, and thank you for for your participation. And, we'll open it up then to the zoning administrator on this one.

So I think everybody on the board of adjustment has seen at least similar requests in the last few years where we've had these undeveloped, road right of ways in the town of Dunn, and we're aware that the town of Dunn is not interested in vacating these parcels, but also doesn't have any plans to develop them. So what's being proposed, you know, seeing that it meets the character of the neighborhood and is meeting what would typically be a side yard setback, Don't see any concerns with the proposal.

Okay. And that that is fair to say is echoed by the town of Dunn, that position?

The position that they're not interested in vacating. Yeah. That's been a conversation I've had over the years with them on various stubs of right of way that head out to the lake.

Alright. Any questions for Hans from anyone?

Arlen? Well, I well, I guess I have my concern here on the why are we not at the five foot setback if we're trying to reduce the any variance request? Is there anything here that says what they're asking with the increased side yard to the neighbor to the south?

It you know, in in my personal opinion on that is on paper, yes, it says 5.4. But when you're standing out there between the houses, I don't think you necessarily notice that point four of a feet. I see that the site plan includes a large existing tree that I'm assuming they're going to try to save, and there may be good reason to, you know, nudge the structure a little bit away from that. I think it would be consistent with previous actions of the Board of Adjustment, whether it's been on shoreline lots, people requesting relief from a front setback or a a lake setback to understand that these setbacks exist for different purposes, and there may be reasonable times that, you know, you're gonna shift development closer to one resource or another or an area that you know is gonna be free and clear open space, and it might resolve neighbor conflict by not pushing things to the maximum just because they can be. And I think that's part of this request.

Did that answer your question, Arlen?

So you you're you're playing the umpire in peacemaker. Yeah.

I I That is the job of the zoning administrator.

Let let me ask you a question, Arlen. Your point is makes sense, but I guess my question is why wouldn't the town have offered that if if if they had discomfort in terms of what's what's being proposed on the town side of it.

Well, that I don't know. And I don't know that that's their their I think they're addressing

They they did address the the the their view of it. As Han said, they what the town said at the the hearing was they cannot they cannot, when they're not gonna use a street, their normal practice is to vacate the land and give it to the adjacent neighbors. Because this is lakefront and they're required to have public access every so often, they cannot vacate this. There's no plans for the the road. So from the town's perspective, it is it is there for the public to to access the lake.

And so that they don't there's no concern on their part about it being too close to the road. It's really more of a park. The this is my comment of what the board the town board said. It's really more of a park than it is a road. And so if they were concerned about I mean, the park setback would be five feet given the lot size. So I and they they they addressed it. If if they could, they would just give all these to the neighbors, the adjacent neighbors, and then they could both slide out. But Yeah. They're not allowed to. They're and, frankly, I think it's good for everybody else to have these spots to access the lake.

Even if you can't get down the hill, you can go look at it.

But they they were comfortable with the requested.

Yes. They they did not raise any issues about the Okay.

So I asked the wrong person my question.

That's where we are.

They always seem to come out of the town of Dunn, so it's convenient for me to go to those hearings.

Yeah. Thank you. So any anything else, Sue or Alex?

Well, I think I think this this is a corner lot to the 2nd Street, which is which is a grass way as as has been mentioned before. This is not encumbering the the use of that public access by this variance. And I think as the appellant pointed out, this it doesn't add any additional burden to the to the the homeowner on the other side of the property. I think if we were just trying to make this conform strictly to the to the whatever feet, you know, and move the other side over to exactly five feet, it it doesn't serve any it doesn't serve any practical purpose. You know, it as I said, it is a there is still public access there.

It's it's not access that's for motor vehicles, so I don't I don't see any problem with this at all. I think they are asking for minimal relief.

Okay. Alex, anything?

The beauty of be going last is everybody gets to see everything that I I would say, and I just think it was very well worded. And I don't see any harm to anybody, and I actually think he's trying very hard to, help neighbors. And so the risk benefit is more in the benefit to all.

I I'd like to add one more comment on the the 5.4 versus five feet. From the neighborhood perspective, the when you get closer and closer and you get tall houses, it starts to make it feel crowded. You've got the open space on the other side. It sliding that house, towards the five foot side would I think most of the neighbors not not just the person who lives there, but people walking by would make it feel more crowded because you've got all this open space just to give another 4.8 inches of room.

It's it's it's it's more than that. The at one point, it's the four point inches. At the lakeside, they're asking they're showing a six foot one inch setback. Yeah. So that's over it's more than the 4.8 inches.

But if yeah. They wouldn't If was looking at this and they they they're already at 10 feet, I think. Aren't they? To the lot line at the the end closest to the lake?

No. They're six foot. They're six foot.

It's 7.4 at the closest Wait

a minute. You're looking at on the

on the towards the lake. Yeah. I mean, the closest point is gonna still be that corner, that 7.4 feet. And at that at that point, they would they would only gain maybe point five feet.

Yep. Well, you're you're looking at some things here. We have had the thing of keeping it at a minimum. If they were asking for to be at a five foot setback here, I would be moving to reject this. But they're asking for a greater that to allow them to have a greater setback Yeah. Which is in their favor. So I agree with you. Brought it up to as a point of discussion, it doesn't seem to have very much traction at the moment. So so we we we'll we'll let's see how the motions proceed.

Alright.

Are there any interested parties that would like to weigh in on this one?

Nobody else in attendance? Alright.

I'm gonna consider that. No. And, I guess there's really no need for rebuttal at this point, from the applicant. Does anyone have any last minute questions for the applicant? Any any anything? Not hearing anything. So we'll we will call the hearing of the case closed, and we will offer it up for deliberation, discussion, motion making, and anybody wanting to make a motion.

I got this one. I scrolled ahead. I'll I move that the variance for, four of 4.6 feet for the setback of of the corner lot side be granted for appeal number 3742.

Okay. And your rationale on this one, George?

The the standards, I believe, are met. Again, the the easiest, I think, is the not of your own making that this is actually a a park next to them, but because the town of Dunn doesn't wanna call the park so they don't have to take care of it, they're it's still a road. So so in actuality, they're they're without the variance, they would be forced to have a setback from a road when it's really a park. In terms of public interest, I don't think there's any harm to public interest because it is it is functionally a park. And and the hardship is the these lots are just so small.

I mean, if this were a 100 foot lot, it'd be a different a different outcome. But these lots are very narrow, and and, in order to to fit a house on there, I it's to to me, it's unnecessary hardship to have them be treated as if it's a corner lot because it technically is. While in functionality, it is not a corner lot.

Okay. Anyone else wanna weigh in?

Arlen? Nope. I think we've set our peace.

So you're you're in agreement with

Well, we'll take the vote. Alright. If we We'll keep the suspense going.

In terms of the rationale, I guess, for

Oh.

Sue or Alex?

Well, this is our decision if we if we are to approve this would be consistent with similar requests that have come before this board for many of the same reasons. So I think it's it's it's it's justified for many reasons, including the fact that the town of Dunn suggests approval of it, and the the zoning administrator has has not seen a big pro a a problem with it.

Alex?

I don't think there's anything more to say. I I think I'm in favor of it, and, I think the the harm to the public is less than the benefit to the public and neighbors.

Okay. I I do wanna make one more comment. Just to put on the record that, again, I missed the site visit, but I did I did go on my own to look at the site. So but I'm what I've said is based on firsthand observation.

Arlen, any nothing nothing more to add?

Nothing more to add.

Alright. I, I can support the motion for the reasons given. It seems an unnecessary hardship to treat that lot, which is a rather strange, and and not very commonplace situation, in a in a manner that would disfavor them compared to what others are able to enjoy in terms of their their side yard setback. Also, the, uniqueness, I think it qualifies for the same reason and the no harm to public interest. It seems that to allow them to continue an expectation of using this lot for residential purposes, It seems fair to give them at least this much of a cushion in terms of creating something there that hopefully they won't have to walk sideways through the length of the house when they build it.

So I can support the motion for all the reasons given. Anything further to add, anyone? Hans, would you read the motion before us?

Motion by Corrigan to grant 4.6 feet of relief to the setback of 2nd Street for appeal thirty seven forty two.

Okay. You've heard the motion. We've discussed it. All in favor of the motion before us, signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

That's five in favor. The motion carries. And what

Jake, you can submit a shoreline zoning permit application. As long as you get that within a year, the variance will stand.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you for your participation. That brings us then to let's see here. Hans, could you update us on the status of appeal 3739, which we had earlier heard but put in abeyance?

Yeah. So 3739 was before us for the January I'm sorry, the December 18 public hearing, which was canceled, and then we heard it in January. Held in advance for a month. Then there was a request for more time, which was granted by chair Long, and it was requested to be returned to this meeting for either granting a further request or or picking it up where we left off. Since then, attorney Robert Proctor representing the Hornungs has presented us with a revised site plan changing the the request of the variance from what was previously in the staff report down to a revised structure that would require a three foot eight and a quarter inch variance.

So the reason that this is back before us is to take it out of abeyance and continue the, deliberation that, was suspended back in January.

Okay.

Do we need a motion to that effect, or is that the prerogative of the chair?

I I think by placing it on the agenda, it's been brought back.

Okay. It's already there. Okay.

We we do, however, need to kind

of

figure out our our process here because I assume we will be hearing some additional information, whereas we've already gone through that part of it. So is it?

My my suggestion based on the action taken to hold this into bands was to allow the applicant more time to gather information and provide that back to you is to allow them to give a brief presentation and then determine whether you're ready to act on this or if there's another action that the board wants to take.

Is that acceptable to everyone? Any anybody object? Sue, Alex? No. Okay. We'll proceed on that on, with that strategy then. So, who wants to address this? And

I'm gonna speak. Robert Proctor. I'm the attorney for Jessica Hornig and her husband, Quinn Michler. Thank you to the chair for, tabling this originally and giving us the additional time and for Hans working with us. As you guys know, originally, Jessica and Quinn went through this on their own, And, and we all know how we kinda got here.

They hired Cleary Building to build them a building for use as a horse arena, A standard horse arena that are usually 60 feet wide and at least a 100 feet long. That's for how you use them. Too much smaller than that, and they're no longer a horse arena that you use for that purpose. Cleary they relied on Cleary when they got the permit to also to design the site plan. Cleary went out there, staked everything, measured everything, and made a mistake and created a constructed the building, which I assume you all went out for the site plan or site visit or had seen, that was more than 13 feet over the setback line and ran almost the entire length.

The when Jessica and Quinn came in for this, you know, you guys, graciously talked to them about the issues that were in front of them and the barriers to their variants. And so we went back and, had some heart to hearts with Clery about what happened and how it happened and so forth. And so came back with this plan, which is reduces the 13 feet to three feet, eight inches, eight and a quarter inches, but also only in that corner. If anybody has questions about the site plan, because it can be a little bit confusing, we went from a setback, intruding over the setback for the entire length of the building to now the building is basically it's going to be moved so that only that little corner is there, that continues to go over the site plan or, excuse me, the setback. So that's how how we ended up getting here.

And so to kinda look at the issues now, if we go through the test and we talk about the hardship, the reason for the hardship is that it's the functional use and safety is the in order to use an arena like this for horse riding, like I said, it was 60 and a 100 feet. Is that kind of what you want? They're willing to go down to 50 feet and a 100 feet, and it could still function. But any more than that, and it's no longer an arena, and it would just they would just take it down and be done with it. And the issue so the issue would be, well, why don't we just cut off that cut off that little triangle at the end, the three feet eight inches.

And the reason is that's not safe. Like, when you ride horses, you ride them around the perimeter around it. And if you have a jagged edge that's coming out there, that is a danger to the horse and to the rider. And so you you want to maintain it that way. And so that's, at this point, the functional hardship is they can't move it any further for that.

The so then when we get to the unique conditions, the existing there it's next to an existing barn. It's next to the topography of the area, the utilities, and everything like that prevent it from being moved any further. They're already going to have to move it. It's got, it's got, footings in there that are gonna have to be taken out, a new footing put in, there's no savings to them by leaving it there. If there was a location on the property that the applicants could move it to, they would because they have to go through that entire process.

They're the furthest they can move it is where the new site plan shows it with that little corner, and they can't move it any further. They would, and they don't wanna create a dangerous situation by just cutting off the last three feet eight inches.

Okay.

Run. As to the public harm, the there is no public harm whatsoever. The there's 11, I believe, 11 letters. There's numbers of letters of the neighbors who have supported it before even the change. The site visit, you went out there.

You saw where it is. It would be moving it. It's important to bring it into compliance as much as possible, of course, but it's not going to affect anybody else. It's a beautiful property, a beautiful location, beautiful buildings, but it there's no harm to anybody, by granting this minimal, this minimal change. And the I also believe that the town of Vienna supported it unanimously in the original variance request.

And so there's no opposition to it. Don't believe there's any harm. It was unfortunate that Cleary made it literally just committed malpractice, and they left this. I think it's reasonable. I understand that it's not always justified, but it was reasonable. They relied on Cleary. Cleary are the experts. They have more than enough commercials on TV about their expertise. And then when they were left with the problem that they have now, they've come back with the most minimum alternative that they can provide you while still having the functional, horse arena.

Okay. And can I ask you just an additional question? Because as I recall the earlier discussion, one of the concerns raised, if I'm not mistaken, was the matter of it being a self imposed hardship. How would you address that?

Well, clearly, the applicants didn't create the hardship themselves because in the sense that they weren't the ones that made the mistake. They relied on their contractor. But even if the contractor hadn't put it in the right place, this is the only place that the house the horse arena can go. And it can't go anywhere else on the property at 50 feet and one wide and a 100 feet long. There's nowhere else to place it.

If they could, they would because it already has to move. So if they had come originally with their original permit application wanting to build a horse arena, the issue would have been for the board that either, no. You can't do it because they needed to be 50 feet wide or, we'll grant you a variance. You know? There's nowhere else they could put it.

So now they're at this point where when they originally came to you with 13 feet over, they you could say it was a a self created hardship by their contractor. But now it's as small as it can be. If there's no variance granted, it just goes away. They it just there's no you can't have a functioning horse arena that's smaller than 50 feet by 100 feet. It's no longer can be used for that.

It's just a pole barn, and they didn't want a pole barn. So that's where the hardship is now is that the current the way the utilities run, where the buildings are, where everything is, that's the only place to put it. And the and it's not flat air there's not flat areas. That's just where it can go.

K. I'm gonna open it up to questions. Who any any anyone have questions for Sue, Alex, Berlin?

I I'm gonna, ask Sue as a a horse person. What do you think of a 46 by 100 arena, or is this 50 the bare minimum?

I think the 50 by by 100 is kind of standard for for, like, a noncompetitive arena from what I've read online. As a horse person, when I was when I was a kid with horses, I was living out in the country on a farm, and we just didn't ride in winter. This is or we dressed up quite a quite a bit. So I I don't think I could be really qualified to to say.

Okay. Just curious.

No. I appreciate it.

Alex, anything?

I guess I have a question for the attorney. Do you feel that there's additional liability that would be created, if the Horse Arena was moved down to the to meet the standard, would it actually result in, something that doesn't meet a standard would create liability for the owners?

Could it be considered negligent if you let people ride in a smaller

Yeah. I mean, I could make the argument. I'm not a personal injury attorney. The if it would be difficult for them to make the argument themselves because they did it. But if they had friends riding and they were riding and there was a injury because of the turn and, you know, yes, you can make the argument that it's an unsafe riding facility for somebody who's going to be riding and, using it as a riding arena.

But I'd go one step farther now. If if it was scaled back now, they've said it's dangerous. So they would essentially be saying we know it's dangerous, but we're gonna do it anyway. So to hear from my perspective, Alex, the answer to your question is they've they've said that if they make it smaller, it's it's not safe. So if something happens, that's a a pretty strong argument against them.

Thank you.

Hans, can I ask you a question? Sure. This, I assume, the highway the language that they offered in the last instance would still be applicable for that portion that's technically encroaches in the right of way?

I don't know. I've I reached out to Kevin Isaac at Dane County Highway today, but didn't get a response if this would change. And I don't wanna speak on behalf of the highway commissioner, And I didn't have time to evaluate the future width of right away that they would have here and what that would do to the setback. Obviously, an encroachment of almost 14 feet is quite a bit different than just a small area of three feet.

Can I ask you, would that be a deal breaker if they wanted to keep that language in terms of the whatever is still encroaching? It was

difficult to understand the language because I thought they were saying that they would want seven to 13 feet, which would still it would just shorten the setback between the building and the road right away if they took the land. That's the part I was struggling with understanding. They weren't going to even with the old building, even with the old layout, I struggled with what they said about taking the building down as part of a condemnation because they didn't need to take the building down for the right of way that they wanted. It would shorten the setback if they right now, there's a 40 foot setback to the edge of the road. You know, let's say we could move it to exactly right on there, and they took additional land for the right of way, where you would still have the nonconforming you know, you would just have a shorter setback.

So if I was reading it correctly, I just struggled when they talked about taking down a building, because if the building what I what I read that I didn't understand is they don't need to take the building down in order to expand the road. It wasn't that close. You know, you have a 40 foot setback there. They weren't gonna ask for 50 feet. You know, they weren't even gonna ask for 40. I thought they're I I thought they said seven to 13 feet. So my point is that's a long winded way of saying it's likely not a deal killer if I understand it correctly.

Yeah. I thought one of the if they just went out to the 40 feet, it it wouldn't issue. But, like, say there's a subdivision that gets put in and they throw a roundabout in Mhmm. That roundabout's gonna need a lot more. The the right of way for the roundabout would be much greater than 40 feet. Yeah. And so that the if if you had built exactly to the line, then without you know, the then if they wanted to put the roundabout in, they would be paying you to move the building.

Yep.

Now there's what they had said is if you had that 13 feet of variance that then if for some reason I'm using a roundabout.

It could be for

any other reason. But if for some reason they needed more right of way than what you would expect for that highway, then it would shift the cost from the county to your clients. Yeah. That's and that was my concern when it came up before that. It was there's sort of this hidden time bomb that none of us

know whatever. But the problem I have with that is that's an overreach ask to that point. For example, if we had if Leary had done this correctly and it could fit and we were exactly on the 40 foot setback and they decided to put in a right away that or excuse me, a roundabout that was gonna force a building to come down, they'd have to pay for that. Right. And so then to say, well, if you get three feet, we're then you we get to tear your building down for free.

That seems to me an overreach. If they say they want to condemn seven to 13 feet that won't affect the building and not pay for that seven to 13 feet as if they what they would otherwise have to pay for, that's probably not a deal killer. But if they're like, oh, we get to tear down your entire building for a little corner three foot setback, and we probably were gonna have to tear down your building anyway because I doubt that they were like, oh, we're just gonna tear it to the exact property line. I mean, setback line. That seems like that seems I I I don't know understand how that like, anybody could look at that.

That seems like a huge overreach. It's one thing to take. Even saying that you shouldn't have to pay you shouldn't have to pay for the condemned land, The seven to 13 feet is a bit of an overreach. You know, they're basically saying, give up the if we take that land, everybody else is gonna get paid for it except for you because you got a three foot, a variance for three feet, so your building could go three feet past. So but, again, the seven to 13 feet that that just changes the setback in effect is okay. Saying that you get to tear down the whole building and not pay for it is especially when it's over.

So, yeah, I I understand your concerns, and that's one of reasons I thought they needed advice of counsel on that. It sounds like you're saying that the language they wanted even with this is still a deal breaker because it creates rights that you just think go beyond what

Yeah. Unreasonable. I think it could go beyond what I think is reasonable, and we would still agree. I think if we talk to them and we're very detailed about it, I think we could easily find language that worked. I suspect, this is just me guessing, that they just looked at it quickly and said, well, if they're gonna build into that area, we're not gonna be responsible for the building Right.

Without realizing looking really detailed at it because I don't think they could say with a straight face that, oh, we're we we need to tear down your entire building. But because you got a three foot variance, we now don't have to pay for the entire building. That I don't think that would be their real position if push just came to shove.

But I guess in terms of that particular aspect, it seems a problem for me with our third standard in harm to public interest were we to become less disciplined with location of buildings and the consequence being, the taxpayers had to pick up the tab at some point in some manner for that error, that seems to me to be a harm to the public interest potentially.

But that's not and I just respectfully disagreeing, if this building was put exactly on the lot line, there would be no you couldn't claim there would be a harm to the public because it's right on the lot line. And if the county decides to condemn people's properties, buildings that are right on the setback, they have to pay for it. If you're saying that the variance puts the corner of a property just three feet, a little corner over the lot line, and this county needs to tear down the whole building anyway Yeah. Not just because of the three feet

I can understand that being a a reach. But my point is if there is a cost incurred legitimately, that would be reached. That would be an illegitimate situation. I I agree. A legitimate expense would seem to me to be unfair given the self imposed aspect of this. Even though it's not not these folks' fault, it's somebody put it in the wrong spot.

I I understand, but I don't I still don't understand the cost that ever goes so we're actually willing to give the county a benefit because I doubt that the county is going to put a a roundabout there. It's more likely they could condemn some land that they need, and they're gonna pay everybody else for it, but they're not gonna pay us. Not because there's anything in that land, but because we have a three foot corner over the land, over the setback. You know? Because they're not saying, generally, we wanna come in and condemn everybody past the setback.

I've never really even seen people them go that far. So they're saying that if they're gonna widen the road, they need seven to 13 feet into the setback. That has nothing to do with the building.

Yeah.

You know, it's a 40 feet foot setback. So they take seven feet let's just say they take 10 for easy math. There's still 30 feet except for a little corner. There's 27 feet. Do you know, I don't see that being costing the county anything.

And in addition, we're willing to say, fine. We'll waive compensation if you condemn that even though everybody else is gonna get it. In essence, we're paying all that lost condemnation money for that three feet that has no effect at all. I mean, no, like, no effect on that. Now if they were going to put a roundabout at our property at that corner, I can't believe that three feet is going to matter between whether or not the building gets taken down.

You know? Like, if you're gonna put the roundabout at the three at the lot at the setback line, that whole building comes down. You can't just, like, have the roundabout abut the building, the setback line where the building is. They're gonna have to take the whole building down, and that has nothing to do with our variance because they're taking down the building past the setback.

Yeah. And then in terms of the self imposed hardship is kind of a there's different aspects to it. And, also, you have to take a step back and look at the fact that everybody else has to build the right side of the right of way. And if you make exceptions for people and then find a means to give them a variance, I'm wondering if that in and of itself doesn't set up a harm to public interest because you're you're not treating people equally compared to their neighbors who don't get to use their property in that fashion.

Well, just like the last one you did, the person could build the house within that five the five feet instead of the 5.4 feet. Like, it's just a smaller house. If you're gonna apply it that strictly that you have to say that that if it can't fit, you can't build it. Well, then arguably neither of the variances tonight should have been granted. I mean, they got a setback relief partially because I understand it's a greenway and not a road, but you could have just built It's a nonconforming property.

They could have just rebuilt it on its existing area. They could have rebuilt it right where it was legally. And so what we're saying is we can't make it any smaller. The original 13 feet, I agree, because it was bigger than what was required. But now if now we're at the point where it's as small as it can go and we need three feet, and it's not because we can't move it someplace else.

It's very similar to the previous one. They wanted to build it in a better way, you know, not because it was impossible to build a house on the last lot, just because it fit better that way, and it didn't impact other people. And that's the same thing we're saying now is that even if we hadn't built it, this isn't we built it and now we're begging for forgiveness. It's gotta get torn down and a new one built in essence. This is the equivalent of coming.

We went in for our building permit, and they said no because it's over the setback. And it was six you know, it was gonna be 60 feet wide. So then we redesigned it. And to fit it, we still have this little three feet sitting there that we can't deal with. And that's the so that the self it's the first time, it's a self created hardship even though Cleary did it, but now we can't build it anymore on that property without that three feet.

Yeah. Because of actions that

that No. What would we have done different? Like, I mean, we're like, we can't like, let's say we just tear it down and start from scratch. There's nowhere to put a 5,800 foot building without going over the line.

Yeah.

Like, I know I understand that the first time, Cleary did it, and you're imputing it on them, and I understand it. That's the law. But now even if Cleary had done it right, what would have happened is the application would have shown that it was across the the line, the setback line. The zoning administrator would have said, no. You need to come back. Clearion would have redrawn it again, and they would have been like, this is the best week. This is the only place we can put 50 by a 100. We would have come back to the zoning administrator, and he would have said, okay. Well, you need to get a variance then if you can't put it anywhere else. That's why it's not a Clery issue anymore once we've now brought it to this point.

Well, probably agree to disagree on that one. But

I I guess I just have a couple of questions and and some statements just to

Yeah.

Direct my question. So I I I agree on the imputing Clery's actions to you, and I tried to find case law. And I think it makes makes sense that if if you let a contractor's mistake mean it's not imputed to the client, we'll suddenly start having a lot of contractor mistakes. Right. It's it it it is not fair to the person who had the mistake made.

I understand.

But it it's sort of a necessary evil. But I I would like you to address the the use of the property. So trying trying to fit this peg into the hole, of of it it's not that every use of a property has to be able to be made. Correct. Is there a reasonable use? And so you'd mentioned the poll barn. Is that a reasonable use of the property that then that's the reasonable use that should be made? Or is there, you know, I'd like you to Yeah.

I I would. So they wanna ride in the winter. A pole barn doesn't do anything, so they have the stables. Right? So they want a riding arena.

Like, to say that, well, you could build this isn't we're not saying it's a taking. A takings is when you say there's no other use of the property. What we're saying is that we meet the that in order to allow us to have a riding arena, this is the only way we can do it. And, again, I I it seems the analogy isn't convincing, but I don't understand when I look at any variance that comes in here. If the if the application of the standards is, well, is there another reasonable use, or can you still reasonably use your property some other way?

Well, then you wouldn't have granted any of the variances tonight. I mean, they could there's other ways to reasonably use a property. Like the house, again, the previous one you did, if you apply that standard that you couldn't just build the same the same footprint house that's there today. Like, that like, they're asking for an upgrade in the house, and it doesn't and I agreed with all of your logic. It doesn't impact anybody, and it's a better use.

But if but they could have built it the other house. They weren't and so on this one, again, like, I understand the way it originally came in makes this idea that the contractor messed up, and he did. But now we're at a point where we have to tear it down. Like, we could have just started over. Like, we we have to tear it down, take out all the footings, and build a new one.

If we could fit 50 by a 100 feet somewhere else on the property, we would. You you know? So it's not any so the the land itself now creates the hardship because it's the only place it can go. It's not because if Cleary had done it correctly, we wouldn't have built a 40 by 100. We would be sitting here with no building there asking for a three foot variance to do the 50 by 100.

And that's the and so to your point about other reasonable uses, sure. We're come like, there's you could just not have it there and just have a picnic area. And I and I appreciate your point, but, yeah, the the issue would then be without a variance, you can't put a functioning riding arena on the property. And and the hardship is because of the property, and it's and same as a person who needs a boathouse. Like, I you know?

Like, a lot of that variance was to allow for a boathouse and access to the lake. You can still use the property without a boathouse and access to a lake. Same as we could still use this property without a riding arena. And I think the three feet is so minor now. The original one was major, and it wasn't a minimum alternative and so forth. But I think at this point now, it's just a you're talking nine square feet.

I I think your analogies are getting a little, apples and oranges here because your boathouse has a lot of other aspects to it that we're not taking into account as well. It's not strictly a frivolous thing. Sue, you you've got a hand up.

Well, I I just when I was looking at trying to trying to figure out ways that they might be able to revise this to keep the use of the of that size of of a riding arena. I believe Clari built the the horse and tack shed in 2021. I was wondering if that building could be shortened on one side and added to the other. You know, like, move move the whole stall barn, like, one stall further inward and then put then put your riding arena adjacent to it with all of the benefits that that you wanted of having it adjacent to that to that barn so that you could just walk your horses right into the riding arena. So, you know, I I think that there were maybe some other solutions.

Is it cost effective? I don't know. The the thing with the hardship that that that really stopped me in the beginning was that, yes, these the landowners signed the agreements as to what what the requirements were. And in those requirements and and it's unfortunate when it gets to a costly situation. But in those requirements, they needed to to have a survey done when, like, the corner posts were were up and put in before the building was was finished off.

And it looked like the structure was basically up in August 2024, but they didn't get their their the the basic framework was up in in November 2024, but the survey wasn't done until September 2025. You know? So it's that was what my original problem was. I think they're getting a lot closer with this three feet. One of the questions I have is the three feet that they're asking for, what is the length of of that? You know, you're saying it's a corner of the building, but, like, how many feet of the building is that?

Seventy seventy point six square feet.

70.6 square feet.

But it the just the length, not the square footage.

The length the length of the triangle is thirty two eight five and five eights inches. Yes. So

So it's three feet by 32 feet, roughly?

Yes. That would be a square. It's a triangle.

So

It's the triangle. Yeah.

So

The part that's I'm I'm I'm saying that the the the the length that is outside of the compliance.

Yeah. So at the longest part of the triangle, which is the corner of the building, it's three feet eight and a quarter inches, and then it goes 32 feet five at five and five eighths inches. And at that point, it's zero.

It it tapers at a triangular rate to

Mhmm. Okay. Alright. Thank you.

To keep this straight line. And just to address it again, because I I I've now I'm on a journey, so forgive me for being redundant. We're not saying that the cost of moving the building, taking it down is a hardship. We're not saying that they didn't create the hardship because there was a contractor. What we're saying is let's if the building wasn't even there because we have to take it down, the only way we build a new building is with a three foot is with this variance.

So, like, in put in another way, we could have torn down the building already because we have to. Even if to do this, because it has concrete footings, we could have resubmitted for a permit showing the little bit of the overhead the three foot over, going over the setback, and we would have been told, everybody else, we need a variance. And you would have an empty you would have no building up, no anything, and we would be back here saying we would be saying the we're unable to put a 50 by 100 foot building anywhere else that can be used as a riding arena with straight walls to make it safe.

Were you familiar with mister Lane's input in the earlier meeting, what he had to say on that?

Yes.

Do you do you have that anywhere, Hans?

The the letter from

Yeah. What he said. His my recollection is his take was considerably different than that.

But I would only assert you, if we could put it someplace else and we already have to tear it down and build it again, why wouldn't we then put it there? There's no cost savings to us doing it this way as opposed to let's just pretend there was a great 50 by a 100 foot flat area on the property that we could easily put it there. It doesn't save us any money to put it here. We could just put it

there. Yeah.

I mean, that's my point. I understand that Roger looked at it online. I understand why Roger was he has to deal all the time when contractors make mistakes, and these come, and they I get it. But he looked at it, and he said, I am sure you can fit it on there. But if we could, we would. I mean, we have to pay for it anyway. Like, there's no difference. Like, it's not like

Go ahead. I mean, you can go ahead that.

I I wanted to follow-up on on something Sue had said about the tack barn. So if if you made the the southern edge of the tack barn three feet longer, maybe it's only two feet longer so that it that southeast corner of the horse arena would now be pivoted, wouldn't you be able to fit it all? I mean, you're just talking about adding a little almost like a little breezeway of two feet long on one side and zero on the other. In other words, make the triangle part of the tack barn instead of the horse barn so that the entire horse barn would now rotate a few degrees clockwise.

It it I'm just be parallel to the road.

Yeah. It'd be parallel to the road then. Instead of. So if you had drawn the line parallel to the road, the problem is it doesn't flush up to the tack barn. One way to get around that is to make the tack barn a little bit longer. And and I'm I'm taking what you said, and I appreciate that. If this had come to us with no history, which would be a much better case

Correct.

For everyone. Right? Correct. Absolutely.

If it come to us for no history, we'd be looking is there an alternative? Correct. That would be one alternative that I would ask. So I'm asking it now. If you look at that the drawing that was given to Hans recently Yep.

So I take the southern edge of the tack barn, and I make it a few feet longer. Interesting. So that and then and then the lines the line between the northern edge of the Tack Barn and the southern edge of the Tack Barn now parallels the right of way. So now I have the whole building parallel. And since you had plenty of room on the southern end, the northern end would pivot, and it looks like you wouldn't even be in front of us.

Did

anybody understand me?

Yeah. I I did.

But if you

I had the same question.

Yeah. How do you

And it really goes to alternatives. You know, that's one of the So

that Especially if you have to are you do you have to tear the whole thing down?

I I believe so.

Yeah. It's got it's got the

Then you then you have

a clean slate even if you look at the pivot point. Yeah. But the pivot point north start to northwest the northwest corner of your tack mark and have that be the edge and build this whole thing parallel to the road, you may be having a little bit more than 50 feet.

You yeah. You could probably get to 54 feet if you did that.

It's not gonna be crazy.

I'm just you know, it is I'm appreciating everything you're saying. It's just We can't. Necessary to

We're not touching this. We're just making this corner further this way so the angle doesn't kick it out that. Kick the long building out this way. You follow me? So everything would be however many feet from the setback from this corner. Mhmm. This would just be actually parallel to the road that we thought clearly

would not very good. It'd be almost what Let

me ask you.

Plan was to do that, except they didn't know they had to stick a little extra on one end of the tag barn.

Let me ask you.

Would make the route the parallel. I think the original plan was parallel.

Yeah. Let me That's what

they drew in their drawing.

Yes. That's what I Let

let me let me ask this because I don't like to do, let's say and let me say I because I'm an attorney. I start arguing with people all the time. I I very much appreciate the amount of you still get worry about that. I mean I know. But I mean, like, I don't mean it as a That would If I sound disrespectful at all,

it is bad.

George, is this what you're talking about?

Yeah. So I don't know. So drawing it on a piece of paper and having Leary tell us what that involves, two different things. And so what I would ask is if we could table it, talk to, Cleary again. And but my question is for what if it comes back and, like, we come back and just assume it, like, it can't really be done.

You you know, like, I don't wanna like, I don't wanna just keep cut I mean, it's it hard. We'll we'll go, and we'll ask Cleary, and we'll go through the whole thing. But, again, if the idea is, well, you could always just tear down that building and redo everything, and, otherwise, there there's no hardship because you can always tear down the other building too. You you know, I don't wanna go through the so happy to go back and ask Clari. We would ask that this gets tabled for us to go back and find that answer, and maybe we don't have to come back if you're if that idea is correct. But if we can't do it and just assume can't before we have the reason for it

If there's if there's anything semi accurate on this drawing, My background says that you should be able to do this.

He's an architect.

Oh, well, I appreciate that. And then if that's true, then there's no harm in just tabling it tonight, and then we'll confirm it and take it off the table. But if it's an issue

And I think you'd have a much better project. You wouldn't have any clouds over

Mhmm.

You wouldn't have anybody Could you trying to, take do a taking on the the highway part.

Could you confirm? Would we have to take down all four sides?

No. You Yeah. I'm I'm going on the representation from you that somebody is taking down all four sides of the arena.

That's my understanding.

Of the arena. Yeah. This would require all four sides of arena coming down? Correct. Nothing of the tack bar coming down

Nothing of the tack bar.

But adding a two or three foot extension of the existing wall to the tack bar.

What? That would you'd give a little try a little triangle would happen on the tack barn.

I see what they're saying. Here. Move it, and you would

Ireland is very good at sketching.

I gotcha.

There. You're out. So I'm really

I think I'm trying Okay.

I'm not doing this exaggerated. We're adding a triangle, like, here.

Mhmm.

This is staying the same. Mhmm. We're just taking this corner out of it.

And then what?

And then this I just wanna make sure if this works that we don't get a bill from

works, you don't have to come back to us.

No. And we also don't get a bill from Arlen, do we?

Oh, okay. I didn't hear that. No. You won't.

I Dude, what they're saying is

You get paid for saving your money. That's right.

Double what you have for this.

Meaning, you'll charge them. Right? You're just adding space

to this.

And you How about your legal?

Do you know what I mean? So All built in. Yeah. We'll pay the legal fees. Those make sense.

Well, I don't know. You haven't heard my billing rate. So, I mean, I

I I guess I would request that and I appreciate that. That's a a great idea. And I would just request that we get tabled so we can talk to Clery. And if that doesn't work, we just have the opportunity to come back.

Yes. This was not a this was not a solution that was given to us from Clery.

Yeah. They didn't they weren't as smart as as the board. Is

that something you can live with, Hans?

I I think that an appropriate motion would be to hold it into advance until, September 1.

Okay. Does that seem fair?

Yeah. Very fair.

Some of that I'll I move we hold this in into abeyance until September 1. Alright. Why September?

Because that's my workload. That's what

I Okay. Mhmm. If you can if you come in sooner, I think we'll

be If you don't if you don't come back at all,

it'd be best. Would prefer you could not come back at all. No. And we

Even if

it all gets resolved.

Because this is an outstanding violation, I wanna just lay out what the expectation would be. Yes. If this is a viable solution that the variance would be withdrawn, The previous permit for the structure would be rendered null and void, and a new zoning permit would be issued obtained from the applicants. You'd have one year to start construction and two years to to finish.

And Mhmm.

At that point, that that would nullify the existing violation.

Okay. And

they would not have to come back. As long as you keep out of that, you wouldn't have to see us again.

Yep.

If this is Can't be resolved administratively and a variance is still being requested Mhmm. That would have to come back here no later than September first or second.

Yes. The one thing I'd like to just add as an aside because we're kinda hard on you here because we're concerned about certain things. But I think it's also fair to recognize based on the input that was provided by all those people that you do serve a public interest of some kind out there that is much appreciated by people, especially with children. And we live in a day and age where those opportunities are getting scarcer and scarcer as opposed to when I was a kid where that kind of access was far more readily available. So I appreciate what you're trying to do.

I wish it had been smoother sailing for you, but we have our concerns that we have to make sure we're addressing.

So Yep.

And we're okay giving you a solution.

Yeah. I wanted to also just comment, John. I I appreciate the the proposed change. I mean, I Mhmm. Don't think it's as good as the one you if it works, the other one.

But,

in from from the board's perspective, I I I appreciate the position you've been put in because you relied on an expert that didn't didn't give you the expertise you would hope for. And our flip side of that, I'm I'm I was mindful that if you start letting, oh, I made a mistake for your reason to get a variance, you just get more and more mistakes. And and I'm not suggesting that's what happened here, and that's why I appreciate you coming forward with this alternative, which would have been at great cost. Nobody would go through what you went through to get a three foot variance. So you you've completely rendered that that issue moot of of making it look like a mistake can be a reason to give a variance.

And so I've tried to approach this tonight from a fresh perspective as if the building hadn't been built. Yeah. And and, again, I I'm I'm glad you've your clients got counsel, and and I hope it works out for you in a way that, makes it easier for going forward.

Yes. Years ago, I've been on this on and off this board for too many years. And early on, we had a tremendous number of, ask for forgiveness, don't ask for permission. Right. And so, oops, oops, I had it six inches over. We had quite a few garages that we had that we ordered six inches taken off the corner of the garage Mhmm. Because of oops. Accidentally on purpose had to end, and it ended. So we're George is pointing out that, if forgiveness is a viable option, man, are we gonna get it loaded up that

Not only not only that in terms of of contractor that would see that as a as a legitimate strategy, but it would put other people in your position. And there's no public interest in protecting that from happening.

No.

It was Cleary does a lot of these. It was shock it's shocking, I mean, that they were 13 feet off all the way. So

Sue, did you have something you wanted to add?

No. I was just going to say I hope that that we can resolve this and they're able to provide this service to the kids because I echo what you're what you were saying earlier, Al. It it's it's it's wonderful for for young people to have horses in their life at an early age like that, and I I think it is a a great value to the community. That's why when when I was looking at the self imposed hardship thing, it was it was very, very hard for me to accept that I would have to vote no because of the self imposed hardship because because I I do value the service that they provide. But it's it's like, you know, do you value the service, or do we have to follow the basic rules?

That's that's our job. You know? This is not exactly a pleasant thing for any of us to to go through because we see what, you know, good things that you're doing. So I just just wanted to put that on the record. I hope, you know, I hope that this can be resolved and that the service that they provide the opportunities that they provide to to these young kids can continue. Anything

more? Alex?

I think everybody said everything wonderfully, and I appreciate, the the applicants seeking an attorney's help. George gave that advice early on. I think you were very wise in taking that advice and then being open to new ideas. The board's job is to see if the rules can can stand alone and be fulfilled. And sometimes the shoe can't fit no matter how hard you try.

And I think that's where variances come in, and I think everybody, including the zoning department, is trying to see what other possible alternatives there are. So I think we're headed in the best possible direction we can be.

Thank you.

Anything any questions for us?

Not at this point. No. Thank you. We appreciate all the time.

And I won't send you a bill. I have a motion. There's a

motion by to hold We haven't voted on the motion. September 1.

Alright. Aye.

All in favor of the motion to obey this matter until September 1 signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries five to zero.

Go get them. Good luck. Go get them. Thank you.

We have one additional agenda item. It's a little bit unique. Due to federal ADA provisions, the county is required to provide provide materials on our website, including forms and submission ADA materials to be accessible. And we've been reviewing internally our various applications and forms in the department, and the current variance application is gonna need some modification. I thought what I was gonna bring here today was gonna be something that was complete and and something that we could, vote on to accept, but this has turned more into an update that this process is going on.

Part of the requirements of accessibility are readability and conciseness, which when you get into technical writing and application that kind of drives somebody into answering complex questions is gonna take a little bit longer than what we put into the so I just wanted to make you aware that we are going to be making this a fillable form and potentially changing language in the application. I know that it's was developed by my predecessor, Chris Shuda, and, you know, a lot of work was put into this to really get good applications up front so that people are set up for success when they're sitting in those chairs. Yeah. And I don't wanna throw that out to provide accessibility. So over the next couple months, me and my colleagues will be working on a revision to this.

If you're reading through it and you have any suggestions for language, feel free to share that. But prior to bringing this back, I'll send out drafts for everybody to review and offer opinions on.

So Okay. Well, I'm not quite sure I under I've I've dealt with ADA on lots of physical things. I haven't dealt with them on forms before. Is there an example of someplace in here that we should that'd be a flag that we should can look for? Or when you say accessible, they can have something that's a hot document that they can fill.

Part of it is the accessibility of individuals that use screen readers. And, you know, these boxes are jumping all over, and it might not go in a order that's logical, or it's being translated through braille or other technologies used to access this information and just making sure that it's presented in a in a formatted way that makes sense. One of the accessibility standards is called readability. And for a government agency, we're to shoot for a reading level of the second grade to make sure that it's accessible to the public at whole, you shoot for somewhere in there. And Yep.

There's challenges to do that, but I think we can do that. So you'll notice, like, in our application, which is also preceded by a a long instruction for filling this out, you know, we're getting multiple paragraphs for answers. And

Let me let me ask you this. I don't understand that concern. If something as involved as some of the variance variances are, is it realistically to assume that somebody that need the second grade level of instruction is capable of pursuing that without assistance from an attorney or whomever?

And I think that's where the technical writing aspect of it comes in. The the idea is to make it so that anybody trying to fill out the form could assess that for themselves. And K. If we can present that in a way that they can understand concepts that might be at a more advanced level and require help, that's what we'll try to do.

It's

we don't wanna I don't want to change this form to make it so that somebody that who is very capable of filling this out thinks that it's so easy that they don't put a lot of effort into it and understand how complex it is. But it it will be a challenge just to get this form in a in a standard that meets that. But what's important at the county level is that we put our best foot forward and make an attempt to do that.

Good foot.

We might not hit all Okay. All the standards, but we're gonna get it as close as we can.

Yeah. You you use a number of examples of the kind of program that could be jumping all over the place or a couple of names that never showed us before, we're not gonna have access to that. So if we're looking at this, we're looking at readability that it makes sense. Give it a try.

Yes. Well,

let's see. Where are we at?

Anything more there,

Hans? Further business? At this time.

No further business?

We have business coming before us. We have one variance appeal that I'm still working on scheduling. I believe it's gonna be May 27, but I'll confirm that shortly. I had sent some emails out about our our dates, and thank you for your response. We've also had an administrative appeal of a determination of mine, so I'll be seeking somebody else to staff that meeting and play in the role of zoning administrator before you. That is tentatively scheduled for June our regular June 25 hearing. Do

will we need alternative counsel for that, or is it No. Not that comp No.

And I'm I have a meeting with their attorney tomorrow, and that could also change things.

So So we're working with the old rules still. Right?

Yes. Yeah.

I did not bring them As busy as Hans was, I didn't know if this would be a good time to throw a big rule revision at him. And plus, we're still I haven't seen anything new on that case, so which could impact.

We can we can make

Beginning of April, the judge had determined he needed about ninety days to rule on it, and we're in that period now. Okay.

So we we you'll let us know.

I will let you know Okay. Tomorrow or next week when we'll be meeting next.

Okay.

By the way, Sue, thanks for chiming in on that. I felt bad that we were a little little hard on these folks in some ways, and and what they're trying to do is

Oh, that

is is a great goal.

But that I think as Arlen's pointed out, the ask for forgiveness Yeah. Is very is very real. And, so I it's this this job isn't always easy, and it isn't always fun, but we gotta do what we gotta do. So

Yeah. Yeah. Well, that being the case, what we gotta do is one more thing.

Move to adjourn.

Alright. Motion made to adjourn. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Good night, and thanks.