Village Board - Regular Meeting

All right, it is 6:01. I will call to order the village board meeting of Monday, May 4th. Aaron, could you call the role, please? Yes. Trusty Saraban here. Trusty Saunders here. Trusty Deman here. Trusty Hower here. Trusty Ben Even Hovind here. Trusty Casper here. And President Buckley

here. Thank you. We'll move on to the consent agenda. We have six items on the agenda. The minutes from April 20th, the investment report for March, check register for April. Resolution 3200 proclaiming May 17th through the 23rd as public works week. Uh appointment of village board members to boards, commissions, and committees for 2627. And finally, citizen appointments to boards, commissions, and committees for terms expiring in 2026. Any questions or concerns? Is Matt doing the coloring contest? That's really all I want to know. Coloring contest,

Matthew. Yeah, no coloring contest. And so far, no naming of the truck game. That's too I'm more worried about the coloring contest. I'd watch yourself there, Matthew. Uh, any further questions otherwise a motion? I move the village board approve the consent agenda as presented. Thank you. Do heard a second? Second. Thank you, Sam. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. On to the report of the village officers, Mr. Cerny. Nothing to report, Mr. President. Miss Village Manager.

Um, I also want to recognize that this week is clerk's week. Um, so apparently they don't get their own resolution. Maybe these are the ones that do all the actual work. um on those resolutions, but just recognizing Jamie and Aaron um for all the important work that they do for us as well. In addition to the DPW recognition, um on this past Friday, we celebrated the retirements of Detective Joe Mloud and Sergeant Dan Co uh Coacher. Um they actually were hired a couple days apart and then retired 30 years later, a couple weeks apart. Um so a pretty cool uh story and a lot of people here to really recognize them. You could just you could tell with kind of the crews and just the overall feeling in in PD last week that they're they will be deeply missed and they're very much have been valued part of the department. Um and so happy for them to get to go on to that well-deserved retirement. Um but certainly a tough time I know for PD. So I want to recognize that. And then we also have another retirement happening. uh Teresa Hogi um who is the head of circulation services for the library will be retiring and her celebration is coming up this Friday. Um so a lot of exciting retirements but a lot of institutional loss as well. Um but wishing her her well and thank you for all of their service.

Right. Uh village president report. Uh the only thing I'll comment on is this past Saturday um the uh the bay day in the green day in the bay. We had green day in the bay for the civic foundation. We had uh run the bay from the um uh not advocates for education. No, it's the the education foundation

and the DPW putting on the recycle day and everything seemed to go really smoothly on a gorgeous Saturday morning. Well, thank you to all those groups for putting on such a great Saturday. Any miscellaneous trustee reports. All right. Hearing none, we'll move on to petitions and communications. This is an opportunity for anyone in the audience to address the village board on any issue that is not on the current agenda. We have anyone here for something not on the current agenda? Going once, going twice. All right, we'll move on to general business. We have six items on the agenda tonight. The first is discussion action on resolution 3201 approving the updated fee schedule for the Northshore Environmental Health Consortium. Really, isn't it the health department? So, Northshore Environmental Health Consortium. All right. And we've got presenters. You can go right to them.

Two representatives from the Northshore Health Department. I'll let them introduce themselves that will talk to the first two agenda items. They're actually visiting all of their member communities uh this month and um next month because everyone has to have the same ordinances and fee schedules. Um so they're on a bit of a road show right now. Welcome just teed up and introduce Brad. Brad's the deputy health officer. I'm the health officer. I think we all know each other. Um and we again we're on a road show right now. Um but the Northshore Environmental Health Consortium is a program of the health department. It's a fee funded program. And so what that means is that we use all the dollars that and they go right back into the program paying salaries and programs. So uh we're trying to recalibrate a little bit after some you know big years with uh inflation and CPI that's kind of gone crazy and we just want to break even. So we have some strategies. So thanks for having us.

So with that said we're looking to propose a 15% fee increase across the board. Uh in addition to that uh I conducted a fee comparison with other surrounding jurisdictions found that some fees needed to be further adjusted some needed no adjustment at all. Um and that is displayed in the box here on the on the memo of which ones are uh either staying the same or having a little bit more of an increase as well. Um so that's what we're look that's the proposal for today. Any questions from trustees?

Could you just clarify if someone doesn't have the packet in front of them? This is not any residential impact. Can you talk a little bit about who would be paying these fees? Yeah. So, all of the money that it's coming from this is going directly into the program. It's from the businesses only. So, we issue licenses to food facilities such as grocery stores, restaurants, lodging facilities, uh public pools, and the money for those licenses funds the program. Uh so there is no impact on uh tax levy or the or any residents. Could could you uh discuss for a moment the tourist rooming houses?

The fee the fee increased substantially. Um, Wishbay, we we passed a new ordinance six, eight months ago. Um, te tell us about the story as to why you're tripling that. And uh, what what's the volume? I would say how many community? Yeah.

Uh, there there is not a large volume in Whitefish Bay. Currently, we have issued, I think, maybe four tourist rooming house licenses. This is your typical Airbnb. Okay. So, they're renting it to tourists or a transient coming through Whitefish Bay. they stay at the home for roughly 1 to seven days. Um the fee has gone up significantly because the state fee went up. So what we have to do is we have to we match the state fee and then in addition to that we have to reimburse them a percentage of their fee. So we're actually going to be breaking even on that based on what the license fee is from the state.

Okay. Um, do you report those? Do do you do you look for the VRBOS's or is that just a self-reported thing to the health department? Yeah, we we respond to complaints. If we are receiving complaints of um, uh, someone renting out their home, we'll reach out to that person, uh, let them know what the rules are that they need to obtain a license from us and an inspection. Uh, and the inspection happens annually. Uh as far as reporting goes, it is we're an agent for the state, the department of agriculture. Uh and so they do get a ledger of all the licenses that we have issued for anything under this program.

Gotcha. So right now, wife should pay for off the top of my head. It's it's in that neighborhood. Yeah. Thank you. Anyone else with questions about number one, our dated fee schedule? You don't do any kind of check or anything when somebody looks for a license. Is it just paperwork and you say, "Oh, you do you go and do like a inspection?" Oh, yeah. That's part of the inspection. I mean, I've been in the area a long time. I I have every license memorized that we have uh issued in the Northshore. So that's kind of an easy one for me, but yes, that is part of the inspection process is to make sure they're licensed.

All right, then I would entertain probably number one and she I move that the village board adopt resolution 3201 updating the P schedule for the Northshore Environmental Health Consortium. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Jacob. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Moving on. Number two, discussion action on ordinance 1926 amending municipal code 1055 and 1062E establishing a reinspection fee for food lodging and recreational safety licensing. Yes. And you're here for that, too. Yes.

Um, so I can give a quick overview on this. Uh in the entire time that I've been here, which is 16 years, we've never charged a reinspection for the first reinspection that we have to make. Um there's certain criteria that has to be met and then we have to go back to make sure that certain violations have been corrected. So what we're looking to do here is add a fee uh to be able to charge for the first reinspection and then subsequently from there. Um this is uh pretty standard practice. uh just about I I want to say every um municipality in the area is already doing this so we were kind of an outlier and we're just catching up on that within the ordinance. Okay.

Right before I came down here I finished put the finishing touches on Bay sides. Oh yeah. So it's got and it's got the exact same reinspection fees that you're tracking. They're coming up on our agenda here pretty soon.

I'm curious how you address food trucks or other mobile or permanent uh food vendors. uh it would be just the same. So we would issue licenses for them. Uh if they don't have a license, so a mobile food truck cannot operate without one, they can obtain that license from any jurisdiction. So I know there's one right down the street here. We have inspected them. Um we would charge an inspection fee for that. It's not a reinspection fee unless we have to go back. Uh but yes, they're all licensed. Are they do they all have to be licensed in the municipality in which they're in which they're operating?

Uh not for food trucks. No, they can obtain a license from the city of Milwaukee and still come up here because it would be illegal for a facility to be licensed twice. So if they got a license in the city, they would not need it up here in the Northshore. But if they didn't have one, we would issue it. And I'm just assuming that all of the regulations are either similar or the same between municipalities. Yes. Okay. Yes. Why would a does it their business or their home that determines where they get licensed? Whether they doing the Milwaukee one versus ours.

Yeah. So, uh the way that works for all food trucks, you have to have something called a service base. Okay. Um if if they have a service base say in the city of Milwaukee or Wauaawa, they should get the license from that area, they could still operate here, but they have to get the license because that's where their service base is. So they they would get it from that area. Do we have very many that are licensed in our service area? Uh I have none in Whitefish Bay. Okay. Yet. Okay. Oh, none yet. Jake and I are going to Jake and I are going into business. How do you How do you like your new digs in Glendale? Nice. I mean, it's new, so it's I like that part. Yeah, better.

No complaints. And no turnover. Turnover. Okay. People like having a nice building and a nice office and Awesome. Awesome. Thank you for your support on that. Uh any further questions from the board? Hearing none, if you could um entertain motion number two. I move that the village board adopt ordinance number 1926 to amend municipal code 1055 and 1062E establishing a reinspection fee for food, lodging, and recreational safety licensing. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. I'm going to give that to Sammy. Uh any further discussion? Sammy, trustee Sammy Dutman.

Wow. Um any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. We will now move on to discussion on single family dwelling side yard setback and distance to neighbor dwellings in districts 1, 1A, and two. Joel. Yes, sir. It's a heck of a haircut you got there. It's No, thank you. It's been a while since I've been up here. So, um, don't be nervous.

Tony, thanks for engaging in this discussion tonight. Um, just a quick background on this topic. Um, it came to light, um, early last year. I would say that, um, on Day Avenue, we had a tear down rebuild. um and went through the architecture review commission, went through my review, passed those things on about March 6th is when a building permit was issued for this project.

As soon as the dig start, I think um the neighbors kind of saw what the impact could be and we started to receive some emails, some calls and I think the trustees were reached out to I know Kelsey received uh quite a bit on that. So, the concerns I will I'll probably miss maybe one or two of them, but the the basic concerns were the location of the build on the property, the sideyard setback, the size of the build was brought up in the emails, and then uh concerns specifically to the excavation. A lot of discussion regarding that. Since that time, staff has looked into a couple different options or maybe we kind of brainstormed through some options out and researched them. Uh, one of those was a structure to structure setback. And what that means is this would be a distance that needs to be maintained from a primary structure on one property to the primary structure on another property or or adjacent property. Um, we did a lot of research regarding that. We we checked with other Northshore communities. No other community had such an ordinance. Uh I reached out to Craig Hunner or sorry Anna did with Grafe. He confirmed that this is not a standard zoning practice. Most communities regulate structures based on LA um not structures on other properties. And maybe we'll go into that a little bit in a little bit. I did reach out to a planning and zoning administrator regarding this. He had not heard of this type of ordinance before either. and he he had a little bit of caution. He thought this may not even be legal. Um I don't maybe

structure to structure structure to structure because what it is is you're looking at a neighbor structure and then it governs what you can do on your property and it may limit what happens on your property even though you're in the same zoning district. It could create a separate set of rules could be viewed as a taking and I defer to Attorney Jacel's on on that. I see he's shaking his head. So issue.

Okay. Yeah. He his concern was that I reached out to architects and designers. They they all kind of shared the same concern. Um their concern was kind of just the unknown ramifications of changing a code like that or instituting an unknown code. Like what ramifications would there be with design builds? And this where you have a known setback and now all of a sudden you have a setback and each property has basically its own zoning district and it could become a bit of a challenge. Um so that's where that one kind of rested and we we let that one sit there. The second idea was changing the sideyard setback. Um what that means is we would be changing a sideyard setback that had been in place for at least the last 90 years. Um the I went back into our property files. I found somewhere in the 1930s that there was this three-foot setback. I don't know if that's where it originated. It could be older, but it it has been an established umamental code for for the last 90 years. The challenge here is I think if we change that sideyard setback um we'd be putting a lot of homes into non-conforming situation. And usually when you change a zoning code, you don't want to put homes into that. You're looking to either take them out of it or you would keep the same code. So I don't know what the ramifications are for making a house legal non-conforming, what it means for resale, what it means for I I and I'm not saying we shouldn't do that. I just don't know what the ramifications. Um, you know, I do get several uh I wouldn't say several calls a month. I'd say at least a call a month with a person checking to see if a house is non-deforming. It's usually has to do with the sale. I also probably receive five to six calls a month with potential buyers asking what they can do with that

property. So, changing a zoning code um will have will or a side setback code I should say will have ramifications as far as purchasers, right? like they find out they can't do what they thought they could do with the property, they move on. But but that's the case now anyway. So something to keep in mind um some questions I guess I I say is just stepping back from day like I know day is a hot topic and I know we have the neighbor here and I I I just want to step away because that's so specific. I would I would ask this board like do we have a side setback problem in Fish Bay? And the reason I say it that way is because for the last 90 years we've had three-foot setbacks at least. And I've been here 18 years. And for those 18 years, I can say we've had 40 to 50 additions every year. So that's about 700 to 900 additions since I've been here. And we haven't had this issue come up. We've had other issues. We've had size of it. We've had how far back it goes blocking some lights, but we have never really that I can remember that we've had a specific case like day and I know I I'm not trying to say it's it's not a valid concern for this project, but I just don't know if we really have.

Can I just more specify you you haven't had a case like day um and and I I get it like there's geometry and and you know feet and 2.8 8 ft versus, you know, all that stuff.

Um, here's my question though is a case like day. Hasn't there been cases where there's a homeowner whose next door neighbor has created a house that is close to their, you know what I mean? Like that's the similarity I'm interested in and how many complaints we've ever gotten from people who say, "Wow, this new, you know, this new extension remodeling or perhaps a new home is is too close. I I I wish it was further away." So like using that as a general concept, has there been complaints like that? I I guess that's where I was going is I don't remember complaints like that. Someone may have said it in an arc meeting

like, "Oh, this seems close." I have not received that type of complaint. I I normally would get the other complaint like what the tear down rebuild committee dealt with was the size of the overall structure and the volume or the mass or these are just boxes now. There's no architecture to them. So, those are the kinds of things that have been brought up in the past and I think we pointed at several instances where that was the case. Again, not trying to say day is not important. I'm not trying to say that at all. But I'm just want to step back and not make it about day. I want to make this about White Fish Bay because when we change a code based on one project, you can have bad outcome. Just

so you know me and you know I'm going to push back on this a little bit. Um, so what I would say based on, you know, the work that was done on the tearown committee is that I think that the setback piece was part of the whole massing piece and the tunneling piece. And I don't and and I think we never touched that, but I don't necessarily think that it that people weren't unhappy about that. So I I guess I want to be careful that we don't think that everybody thought that three-foot setback was a good setback. I think the conversation at the time was, okay, but we've got this, you know, we would make everybody legal non-conforming with with the FAR. I think that's why we didn't

that legal non-conforming discussion really came about with FAR and a hard hard line somewhere. Exactly. Yeah, I I I agree like the setback never really came up during the tear down rebuild. It it never really was discussed, I don't think. I think we were dealing with volume. Well, and I think yes, and I think it came up as a part of I think mainly what we were saying is we're kind of stuck with the three-foot and then what what are we doing within it? The the thing about this one that surprises me and and you know when this first came up, the first thing I did was drive by there. I was shocked that Ark didn't just say flip it. Oh, you know, if they would have flipped this and put the driveway on the other side, I don't know why Ark didn't do that. Do you have any idea?

I would say internal discussions between Kelsey and Anna and myself, we we had the same same thought. However, I would say the existing driveway on that existing house was on that side of lot. So, I I agree, but I think with the developer and the homeowner, we're just going to the curb cuts there, the infrastructure is all in line with it. Why flip-flop it? In fact, I would say of all the tear down rebuilds, I can only think of a couple that changed the location of the driveway. And one happens to be by you over on Woodburn on that corner or you know Woodruff. Sure. Um but they only move it's still a corner lot. They just moved it to the west a little.

I mean the part of the reason that concerns me I mean especially seeing the pictures of when the construction was happening how close and I'm thinking back to the one on Kfax you know how close they got um you know the old farmhouse one that they found the extra basement wall in you know or they left part of the basement wall in because it got so close. that that would be the for me that would be the thing that would bother me most is the potential for damage to other houses, existing houses because we've gotten too close to the foundation. And I mean, it seems like maybe that would be something that we could potentially look at in terms of forcing a flip. Maybe.

Yep. What I think the flip Well, the flip would have helped because that's a garage on that side. Yeah. The other side. So it would have been only a 4 foot 4 foot dig. But you you weren't wrong. I mean when you have a three-foot setback, the dig line is not at 3T. The dig line has to allow the workers to work on that foundation um you know safely. And yeah, the village cannot give permission for a builder or anyone else to go across the property line to dig. Unfortunately with day, yeah, the bank did collapse a little bit and it left that whole situation in a bit of a, you know, Yeah. mess to be honest.

Could the homeowners have said this is trespassing and sought assistance and basically just stonewalled the builders? I mean, how could that have happened or would they have been granted an easement?

Well, no. I mean, again, I'll just speak from what I know. I don't know all the legal ease there. if there is the right to work and to do those things. But yes, if the if if the neighbors on day one to um call the police that they had been using their yard, yes, once that bank collapsed, the builder had to fill it in with something. So, you you either don't fix it or you you work with the property owner next to you. And again, I I'm sure Kelly will talk about that some tonight, but um but yes, they they could call that Paul. In fact, we we have gotten calls about some contractors who have used other property, not necessarily for this, but like storing equipment or whatever and they they never sought permission. So, we do direct them to the police office uh through that role.

So, technically these two houses are six feet apart. Yes. Okay. So, I mean, the the the split isn't necessarily the way it should be, but they had this been shifted a little bit to the east, had the had 732 been shifted a little bit to the east, and we could have still ended up with the same kind of spacing. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. The the new house 726 is more than 3 ft away from the property, right? Not much. But is that But again, 732 is legal non-conforming.

It may have been built before that three-foot setback. It It might have just been one of those cases where a setback came after it was built. So, so I don't really have any recommendations. I guess what I'm asking is where where would the board like staff to go, not to go? I mean, what would you guys

Well, I was just going to say I mean, I agree with you. bad cases made bad policy and we shouldn't govern the entire village based on one instance. But I also feel that this as developers uh continue to maximize what are relatively small lots um we're going to see more of this and I do know we have it clearly impacts the neighbors and we have a lot of ordinances uh that are designed uh to prevent things that impact the neighbors and their quality of life whether that's air conditioning volumes uh or decel levels setbacks, whatever it is. Um, yeah. I mean, I am curious

I'm curious if the setbacks I mean, is there a way that like the arc or the tear down board or whatever it is that we can just add this on a checklist like you must consider the setbacks and the impacts to the neighbors? are are there are there ways to address this without changing the code for everybody just to make sure that it's on everybody's radar? So, I would say I I don't disagree. I I that's what we're looking for. We're looking for a resolution here. I think any resolution has to be as black and white as we can because an impact on the neighbor is so subjective. Like one may say, "I'm not impacting you." The other will say, "You are absolutely impacting me." So where where is that line and like what how do you define what an impact a negative impact versus a positive impact? You know I that that's tough. Some people view sideyards as a total waste of space and we should have very small sideyards. Others say it's great to have a sideyard because it puts distance between you and your your neighbor and creates you know light sort an area for light. So it well I agree I just where do we land I guess and and how do we define that?

I have a Oh go ahead Anna Joel I have a question does the three feet change when the height keeps going higher or is it always three feet? No. If you start to exceed um the 25 foot height

as we define it. I want to be careful because this house looks like it's higher than 25 ft, but we define that height as the midspan between the eve and the uh ridge. So the top of the house in where your gutter sits. The halfway point is the height. But if you exceed 25 ft, it does increase 10% for each foot you exceed that which is 3.6 in. Like I don't know if you can really see a difference. You know what I mean? like at some point it does it feel like it's further apart when 3.6 six inches at home. But but yes, you are right. It does it does get bigger as you go higher.

Okay. Do you have a sense of how many legal non-conforming houses we have side setback wise? No. And that data doesn't exist because we don't have surveys for all those properties. We do have a nice tool through the county GIS that has all the surveys that are recorded. you go on there and I this is just a guess terrace so I'm going to guess maybe 40% of the homes don't have a survey 50% so it's a large amount which you would think well we have to have a survey once in a while we can find a survey in the property file but it'll say proposed dwelling so you don't know if that ever really ended up where it went we can use it as tools but that data would be fantastic but we don't we don't have

doesn't exist because even here on this block I'm seeing you know 2.8 2.45 45 2.4. I mean, there's multiple houses on this block that are legal. Ironically, we had a lot of data on this design area and yeah, a lot of them are already legal non-conforming relative. I looked at my house as I left and I'm like, there's no way that's three feet. So, I I think a ton of houses are non-conforming.

I would guess that, too. So, so here's Joel. You're not going to like this answer. Um because it's not a real Jacob I you're right. This does seem like something that should should go should be something that is in consideration for ARC or board of review. But when you read like the official overview of ARC, really all they're all they need to do is make sure that structures meet the minimum standards of architectural quality, consistency, aesthetic design, and finish. So, and and in Joel's report for this situation, ARC said that it met all of the requirements.

That's not what they do in practice. It is not what they do in practice.

You're you're absolutely right. But hold on. But we've seen over the years that that arc is all over the place and we've come into we've come into situations and wi in which you know there's one meeting where something was approved or not approved and the next meeting with different commissioners the exact opposite happened. So I I I think I think that the answer the answer for me is why aren't why aren't we looking instead of why aren't we looking at taking a different look at how ARC operates and not just in practice because the fact that that can happen in practice where there's one situation, two situations that might be the same and one time it gets approved and one times it doesn't just because of like one small difference. It it it seems to me the problem doesn't lie with the with our ordinances. It lies within the commission that looks at our or analyzes our ordinances.

That that may be a great agenda item. That's probably not the agenda item we have on the schedule tonight. I understand that. I understand that. But we're we're talking about direction to staff. I mean I mean that's that's the overarching problem here. In in all of my time serving on village board or coming to village meetings, there have been so many concerns about how ARC operates. And I'm willing to I'm I'm willing to assume that the the folks here on Day Avenue are are going to question why this project seemed to fit because the other part of the commission overview says it should shall maintain as its goal uh the village character and atmosphere, preservation of existing property values and enhancement of the desiraability of the village. is a residential community. It doesn't seem to me that they do either. And maybe that's another agenda item for another day, but I think we need to put that on the table because anytime we have anytime we have a discussion when it comes to property lines and throughout the Now, Tara, you remember this better than I because I know you probably attended every meeting. I didn't. During the tear down and rebuild committee, there were concerns over and over again about the commission. So maybe that's where we need to be pointing our attention as opposed to one ordinance that would put possibly hundreds of homes as legal non-conforming.

So I was on the committee, so I was there for all the meetings. Oh, for some reason I thought you weren't. I'm sorry. No, no, that's okay. Um, I was one of the reasons we had that committee. I remember that. Um, so shocking and probably one of the reasons the meetings went so long.

Probably probably I'll I'll I'll own that. But but what you're speaking to and essentially what Jacob said are things that we went around and around and around about and there is a lot of subjectivity to everything. But that checklist, and I'm gonna push back a little bit on you, Joel, because that checklist, there's a lot of things on that that are subjective. And so I don't see how adding this to that checklist wouldn't be appropriate because, you know, we talk about light, we talk about um we talk about massing, we talk about consistency with the neighborhood. I mean, so they're all all of those things are a little on the subjective side or actually a lot on the subjective side. And so, you know, looking at setbacks as a part of that, not and not being we're going to reject it because of that, but maybe that's the point at which we go, oh, wait a minute, maybe we should flip this because, you know, and I understand that people don't necessarily have to flip things. But in this case, I think it would have made the project better. It would have made everybody happier.

Yeah. AR Ark has made a house flip before. Yeah. the one on day ironically, but at the corner of Lake and Day, they did have the garage on the lakeside and they they did have it flipped. It it was more for safety concerns, nothing else than that. Just the where the driveway location was going to be and and that, but they have they've had a house flipped before. And yeah, I mean, in the residential guidelines, you're right, it's it's a lot of

Yeah. And it was very hard to I mean and trust me I had so much coffee trying to figure out how to put quantifiable things on this and it was nearly impossible. But I do also want to ask because there was something that came in one of the letters. Were there changes made after arc approved it to like window where windows were were there or did this get built the way that Arc approved it? This got built the way ARC approved it. They the owner of the new house was going to go back to Ark for a revision. They were going to add a window on their porch or in their dining room which would face their porch, but they withdrew that case. So, okay. It never went back to Arc.

So, it did get built the way it was planned. I'm sorry, Brian, did you want to add? But was there any variances required for the that bill besides going to ARC? Like, for example, we got a we got an email about the air conditioner being on the side of the property there. Yeah. by right. Weren't they wouldn't they require a special No? No. The AC U code changed probably four years ago, three years ago that allows AC's in the sideyard. Got it. We used to allow AC's in the sideyard with a whole bunch of conditions. It got it got very

very hard to try to explain to people how what the rear third was, what get a letter from your neighbor again. Then it's am I lucky enough to live next to a neighbor who will let my AC's and it put neighbors in. So you just usually when you make a code you don't make a contingent on a neighbor neighboring property. You make the rule for the district and all districts kind of play by the same rules. And then so that property owner knows what his rights are or her rights are

to to that end. I mean I think the framing of this is perhaps three categories that the seven of us could fall into. Number one, do nothing. Number two, do something subjective. And number three, do something objective. Um, I am not a fan of doing things doing something that's subjective that that the ark would, you know, decide one way or the other. That that's not where we want to go. And right now, we have a subjective um rule of of three feet. So, I just objective is objective. But here here is something that would be more objective. Was it brought to the attention of ARC that the house next door was legal non-conforming?

Um, Kelly might be able to answer this or Steve. I know at the ARK meeting we had I believe one one audience member speak and he did bring up the size, but that's different. So,

but but he but he also brought up um the proximity between the buildings, but I don't know if he brought up the non-conformity of a neighbor. Well, that's an objective measure that we could include on that checklist because I know we include the far of the houses that are around. This would be an objective piece of information that you could share that then art could take into account as they're looking at the design and where it will fall because that's part of the design area and it's important to recognize that is one feature of the design area that probably ARC should take into account. Yeah. I mean, I'm trying to trying to follow. So, I'm I'm just

All I'm suggesting is if if there is a house and and there's going to be a build and either house on either side is legal non-conforming in terms of their side setback, ARC ought to be made aware of that as part of the packet of information that they get. And in your mind, what would that do for ARC? Would it say what that does for ARC is then ARC thinks, okay, wait a minute, let's give this a little an extra, you know, view. Let's think about this. And maybe someone on ARC would have gone, "Oh, well, if we flip this, that'll be a lot better for everybody." Okay, that's where I was trying to get is where you were going. If if Ark should think, oh, they have a reduced setback on their property, we should increase the setback for home.

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm just suggesting that this is a good piece of information for ARC to have as they're thinking about the design, you know, and maybe maybe the they're coming and they're talking about, you know, who knows, something wider versus longer and ARC goes, well, since this is, you know, maybe the longer is better. I don't know. It'll be different on everyone, but it's a piece of information that I think ARC should have. Joel is could there just be something on the arc checks list that says that driveways or garages should be alternating or consideration should be made because we'll have a lot we'll have a lot of needle law confirming all over the place then but can just consideration for you know maybe maybe

because I mean that I think would have caused them to pause it would have yeah I know I was looking at that too except that I when I was looking at this there isn't a pattern I I was wondering about the pattern and there isn't a pattern because you go the 32 and 46 and they've got that funky driveway then that actually goes back behind to two other houses. So yeah, I mean it's just the nature especially of this neighborhood that we couldn't say pattern but Joel um high level question can you think of any other codes where whether it's setback or or any kind of building anything

where the adjacent properties um have an impact on that property and and and and the the the one that springs to mind is far in that you you have a design area, right? And you calculate the FAR in the design area and then we have fun figuring out what the design area is and how far that extends and and that the design area that the FAR will creep up as houses get bigger and bigger. That's the first I first uh example that I can think of. Are there others like drainage or frontfacing driveways? Front facing garage. Brennan's splicing garage is one that does require a pattern.

We have said that there could be multiple patterns in a design area. So, we've we've defined that. But yeah, if you don't have is that an arc thing or are you or it falls under the design guidelines, but I usually handle that. The other one is finish. So, if the whole block is stone and someone wants to come and put something with vinyl siding. know we have you know we do have a number of things like we have a number of things that your you know what you can build on your land is um impacted by what is around you. Yes.

Right. And so this this would simply if we went down the path this is simply another one perhaps a structure to structure or adding a couple feet to the setback. Well, and I don't even know that it would be a couple feet. And I don't even know necessarily that would 100%, you know, um, dictate what ARC does. It's just another piece of information. So, there might be something else. Yeah. And I I I I feel like this should be something that Joel would have as his domain. This is a plan commission type change to our zoning code. Sam, did you

Yeah. So Joel, does every residential district have the same setback of three feet in the village or do they vary by lot type or I will shorten it down to maybe just residential districts? Residential districts. Yeah. Family. They all do have the same foot.

Is is that common among peer communities? I know we're uniquely dense, but do other places have the same setback for all residential lots? Yeah, I would say we're unique in the fact that while we do have a residential district for the homes on Lake Drive and the ones adjacent real a little bit, but the vast majority of our homes fall under district 2 and that's where they all live. Like all these where where most of the time as subdivisions are added, you know, you'll incorporate new codes or you'll have different criteria for different areas based on the way people want to live. I mean, it's some like it close together, some want a little bit of elbow room.

Yeah. I guess I'm asking because even though they're in a single district, there's a lot of variety and lot size, home size, type that I just wonder, are there ways we can think about that in the code or does that become very complex with a single district? It's hard to turn back time on these things because

we are about 100% buildout. There is literally Anna, what do we have 11 lots or seven? Seven lots that were and when you have that established Yeah. I mean, you you could do anything you'd like. It's just how many become non-conforming. And what does that mean? I mean, it's it's maybe something just spitballing here like maybe if you do a new home there's a different set of rules. I don't know. you know, if you do a tear down, but my fear there is if we do that, we get to the I'm going to leave the wall and now I'm an an addition and that's that's legal. So, we we you're going to get those kind of builds. I've seen it in other communities and it's frustrating because it's like that's a 100% a new house and you're like it's not because they kept the foundation, they kept the wall.

Just sorry, one other question too. Do you have any data on like the average size of a remodel today or in the last several years versus even 5 to 10 years ago when we did that tear down committee? And it maybe it's not square footage, but it's the coverage of a lot or something to just help us understand how are builds trending. It's far. We we would have the data. Yeah, I don't have it readily available, but I mean we Yeah, I keep all that and especially now that when we made the FAR worksheet that made it

I think it would be helpful to see how it's trended over time because I think some of what we're looking at is coverage of lots and I my guess is it's getting bigger, but it would be helpful to see the data to pro it feels like it's getting bigger. I I actually don't know. I think that tear down rebuild committee did a good job. I think the FAR actually has limited some of that scope, some of that volume of massing that went on. So I I'd be curious, too. I don't know, but that'd be helpful.

Just kind of going off what Sam just said, do you think we could have a presentation from Joel or the ARC chair about just basic things and higher level things of what ARC does and what the checklist looks like? Yeah, we could I mean we I could get you it'd be probably good to have I don't know if Lauren would want to give a presentation or how that would look like. I feel like we did this three years ago, but remember Paul brought the committees through. Or actually I don't remember that. They weren't committees, they were the departments. So like police and

so we had some though. The only other thing I would say is I mean yes I understand we're built out and yes I understand that we would make a lot of things legal non-conforming but I also will say I mean at some point there was a rule made that if you're going to do an addition you have to have a subpump you know that was that was made long after many many houses didn't have subp pumps. We changed the rules. You can't have your sewers going into this you know you can't have your gutters going into the sewer. I mean so it's not impossible to make a change. Um, and I don't know that I have a change in mind that I think we should make, but I just I don't think that should necessarily be the reason we don't do something.

Yeah, just I'm not recommending we not do anything. I I don't have a side here. I'm trying to gauge where the sports at and where to go from here.

To that end, let's just kind of go around the horn here. Um, are you in camp? Let's not do anything or let's have staff dream up some possible suggestions. You got to figure that I know you looked at the Northshore and perhaps Grafe looked further than Wisconsin, but somebody else some of the community in the country has dealt with this before. Um and so I, you know, perhaps direction of staff is to come up with, you know, a few examples or possibilities. Whether that would come back to the village board or go directly to plan commission, I I don't know. Um, but like we kind of need to figure out who who here wants to do nothing. Like status quo, we're not changing anything. I'm I'm thinking that's zero. So I that's part of staff direction. Um, what what would help you the most to to to narrow in on what what your next step would be? I think what would help me is I I heard you say you don't want another layer or another question on the arch.

Personally, subjectivity is I I don't think that's going to work.

The only Yeah, I I I kind of have mixed feelings. I do like that there's seven people looking at something like that and coming to a decision. I will say we have a system in place where if something gets approved there is the option to take it to BOA and challenge it and prove that ARC didn't meet the code. I mean that's again another step that a neighbor would have to take but it is the system in place. So I mean it it's something that's there. Um, if it's going to be something I do, I really need it to be concrete because I can't work off feelings or I can't work off, you know, like what does one person think versus it has to be something I can look at and go yes, you meet this or no, you don't. So that's I guess does that answer your question?

I I agree with you. Okay. Personally, I don't know if the other six do. Yeah, that would help me. Again, I'm kind of creative. Anna's creative. the idea of making a feelings ordinance is kind of exciting to me. Um, I guess I would just say, um, and I'm going to echo, uh, Trusty Saunders here a little bit, but I think the arc in my experience over the last five, six years has been that is remarkably subjective and it does cause some issues and and it almost has to be because we live in a builtout community and there's so, you know,

our community was built before cars were and we shoehorned roads into their this place. I mean we we have gone through so many different eras of Whitefish Bay and we will continue to do that. And so you have to have some flexibility. But you know, not unlike you know using a telescope to find blurry stars to map out a black hole or some other like feature. I think if you get enough subjective criteria that must be addressed, you start to create the framework of objectivity and it doesn't have to be perfect and it needs to be bendable and it needs to have wiggle room because that's the kind of community we are. But the more checks you get on that list, the more eyes you have on these little problems. And I think the more situations like this that we prevent. I mean, I can't help but think that if the ARC members lived in this house and this house, this would not have been approved. Um, agreed.

And maybe maybe I'm wrong. Um, but I just think I don't know if oversight is the right word, but I would just like a little more meat and potatoes to what the ark does. How I mean, has everyone gone to a lot of Ark meetings? I just define a lot.

Well, I mean, I've probably been to 50. just going and sitting and watching and and I and yes, there are subjective criteria for the very reasons I think that Jacob is talking about, but when you listen to the conversation that they have, they they aren't like I like that, you know, they are really re wellreasoning their decisions and they're and they're all people who have a strong background that allows them to make well-reasoned decision. So, I I do want to push back a little bit on it being totally subjective because I don't necessarily think it's totally subjective. Yes, there are a lot of things there's going to be difference opinions about and you can see them kind of work through those, but the more data we give them about any particular project, the more informed they can make their decisions. So that's why I I I do really like the idea of letting them know you've got a setback issue on one side or the other

or even behind. But I mean and I I I don't think right now in this meeting we'll be able to come up with trust me I mean and I'm willing to do it again. I'm more than happy to do it again. And I think even at the time the idea was hey let's see how this goes and revisit. So, you know, it was Yeah. And maybe and maybe that that's what needs to happen. Maybe there needs to be another subcommittee that takes this work on and and looks again at what's happening with ARC and and ARC did re-evaluate what was it three four years after we did the tear down committee.

Yeah. We started to um kind of shore up some of those residential design guidelines guidelines, make them a little more um objective. It's hard to do obviously with architecture. It's Yeah, it's difficult. But no, and and they I think the first one through they they got a lot of the lowhanging fruit, took care of that. The second one kind of died at plan commission with the had a couple different changes, but spent all summer one time. Yeah. But no, they did a couple times. I would say in defense of Ark, I've probably been to about 10 meetings and they were all of the controversial ones, which I know are not the best ones to attend if you want to get a gauge of

Oh, well, bad.

No, I mean, it's still a good thing to see how they because I I I mean, it's every single one of them. I think if you ask them why they voted why they vote, they would have a really well-reasoned reason for why they voted the way that they voted. I mean, ARK has a really hard job. I totally get that. They have a super hard job. Um, but you know, they don't always get everything perfect. I don't think any of us does. Truthfully, I my only concern is that it's too subjective and even giving them more data wouldn't like I agree with you. I mean data points for me are, you know, is always, you know, something that that I view as important, but they could have all the data they want and still come to the same decision that they were going to anyway. I just it it it of all the meetings I've I've been to and the commissioners I've spoken with outside of meetings, it it just seems too subjective. only we knew the guy who wrote those design guidance

reconstitutes and sort of.

So, um, again trying to get back to helping Joel uh move forward. Um, I I again I I think there's three teams. Number one, do nothing. Number two is um an ordinance change, a zoning code change, something that is objective or something that goes to ARC. So, what what team are you on? Um, do do you want this to go to the plan commission or or um well, I suppose ARC things also go to the plan commission, but what flavor do you want staff to go after? Something that ARC does or something that is in our zoning codes? And it looks like you're an ARC guy. I'm an arc guy just because I think, you know, most the houses in Whitefish Bay are north of a hundred years at this point. Um, if not, they're very close. I just think the pace at which you see these houses get built is going to pick up for the foreseeable future and it's and it's we are going to see more of this and more of this and we should get ahead of that.

Two two quick statistics just because we have them or why once upon a time made Joel get them that first uh at the time I think a year ago 88% of ARC requests get approved on the first goround. 88% that's that's a pretty good rating. And then the next one was what is the average number of tearowns per year? Although modeling is a little different, but tear downs was like 4.9 a year. Um, just so we all have that data in our heads. Yes. I'm not worried about this year. I'm worried about 10 years down. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. I just love giving out that that info. Um,

can I can I throw something out there? What what if we threw something back to ARC for discussion like saying the trustees feel like the day project was a miss? what would help you avoid this in the future, something like that, and get their feedback as to what data they would need to catch this kind of thing. I think the submitt that was given was very transparent. It did, you know, Terry, I was just thinking it did call out the neighbor's house. Oh, it did.

Now, now if they read it, like there was nothing that says, "Hey, look at this." But it was on the survey that showed both property um adjacent property building lines. I it showed a site plan that showed the existing site plan and the new site plan. So it showed the impact it would have. Again, maybe ARC doesn't think it wasn't, but if they hear the trustees think it is, I I feel like maybe we give them a shot and say what what other data would be helpful.

I'm totally in favor of having smarter people who deal with this all the time take a crack at giving suggest suggestions. I think I see a lot of heads. I agree with Joel like this was a miss. So I don't know. I want to hear their reasoning too.

Can can I ask one one other question that's a little bit off of that though and that is simply if you were a developer what would you like to hear out of this? You know like I remember you once said to me something about developers will design to the far that they think they've calculated correctly. Right? Aren't developers going to develop to the code? Right? So if it's three feet, they're going to do it and they're going to see if they're going to roll the dice on on Arc, right? So that the first draft they're going to send to ARC is going to be right at that three-foot level. And then ARC is going to be the ones potentially that would say we don't like that three, it's got to be four or five. And then you then you do run the risk of the illegal taking, right,

concept. So I I that's why I get nervous about ARC having a I I do think one of the things that was instituted by the tear down rebuild committee and then obviously the trustees was that that architecture review submitt deadline being yeah

kicked back 17 days because what it does is really kicks you out a month and most developers don't want to wait a month. I mean, it is terribly frustrating for someone to get table at art and the submitt was 4 days earlier or 3 days earlier. Like that drives people crazy. And I think it did what you guys wanted it to do and that's get a get a good submitt the first time. Um, yes, a develop this was not a developer. This was a cute homeowner that on day this wasn't a a flip or anything, but but you're right, a developer will try to maximize his, you know, square footages and profits. So So yeah, he'll he'll hear that. Although we don't we we don't really have a lot of developers. We don't have a lot of flips right now. So

Well, and it's not just developers, it's also contractors. Okay. Before we go any further, should we hear from the neighbors? Yeah. And then and then secondly, I'm also curious from one one of you. Did you speak out in opposition of the day project before it happened or did it did it come to your attention after they already broke ground? Let's either one of you. Yeah. Let's let's open it up to the public. If anybody would like to speak their mind on this particular subject, you'd come up to the microphone and you don't need to, but came here just to listen. That's great. And I hope that we've impressed you with our uh analytical thoughts. if you could state your name.

And as she's coming up here, I just want to make sure I have an opportunity to say we did receive multiple emails that were forwarded onto the village board from Josiki, Kelly, um Dan Cloak, Susan, um Hopwood, and Richard Stalet. Did all the board members receive those? Yes. Perfect. I just had said I'd for them along and wanted to acknowledge that. Thank you. Well, I want to thank you for bringing this back up. It's been your name.

Oh, I'm so sorry. Kelly Cloak and I am the neighbor at 732 East Avenue Avenue. Um, so I just want to thank you for bringing this back up. It's hard to relive what we went through one year ago. You know, we we didn't receive the letter and we don't need to go through all that. We didn't have enough time to digest everything that was going to happen. Look at all of the plans and know as a newish homeowner what was going to happen with the new build happening right next to us. Kevin, you said that there's only 4.9% of this happening right now, right? Of the new construction tearowns.

4.9 uh units per year. Okay. of tear down roughly five. Yeah.

So if that number is so small, my question was why wasn't more effort brought to our brought to us being the neighboring property to inform us of what was going to happen. I really didn't know. And you know it it is common sense then after I talked to Joel and spoke with him after listening in on the first meeting. I unfortunately wasn't able to attend and I'll kick myself for that forever. And I also didn't know that I couldn't speak in on the Zoom call either. But it it just I didn't understand as a newish homeowner what the effect was going to be on our property. And sure, it makes sense now in hindsight. Oh, if they're going to build this close to our home, they're going to have to dig a bigger hole in order to do that. That's not something I'm thinking about when this is happening. So, because that happened, an excavator hit our foundation as myself and my children were in the home. Our house shook. Okay. I didn't even know what was happening. Thankfully, I had a contractor over and he was like, "Yeah, that just hit your property." Um, I don't I'm everything that happened with this. I'm living in the moment while taking care of my children and trying to do the best for my home and for my family. And I did go to the police and they said, "Do you want to file a complaint?" And I said, "Let's just put this as like a warning." I don't know. I'm not that person that wants to escalate this. I just want it to be done right. And I kicked myself too for not making it a formal police go over there and kick them off my property. They were on our property day after day. I asked them, "Please get off of our property multiple times and the

workers would not because in order to build this home, you had to use our property. There was no other way around it. And I just don't think that that's right. Bring your house in three more feet. What we're talking six feet that would have created a lot more light in our home, more distance between the homes. If when I come down our stairs, it's like a barrier that how close the houses to ours. I don't know how they feel now that they're living in the home, but it does create a big impact. And in the meeting it the homeowner spoke the initial ARC meeting saying someone had asked about on the committee I believe the windows and maybe they didn't I don't know for sure but the windows were brought up and she informed ARC that the windows would not align and they took a lot of consideration into where the placements of the windows were and will be there's 14 I think there's 14 windows on the east side of the home. More than half are directly into our home. Um, and they told us many times, don't worry, you know, we're not trying to spy on you. We're going to have our shades down at all times. That's not a solution in my eyes. Um, I just think that with this instance, and as you said, these homes are old. This is going to happen in the future, and I just don't want this to happen to another young family that's just trying to figure it out in the moment. Um, after it was approved, I did speak with Joel and you know, it was not directly said to me, but it was kind of like, yeah, you can write in and fight this, but I don't think anything will come from it because you are meeting all of the numbers. So that's why I think that yes, we should have more of a conversation with ARC about how is this going to impact them, not just looking at paper and what the setbacks actually are and what the

masses are because especially in this pocket of White Fishb on every block. This is a unique situation as you said and I just think more thought should have been put around it. Um and like I said there's nothing that can be done with our home now. I tried I tried with the HVAC and even thinking about that the HVAC situation and had I written in and fought this um I don't think that they would have gone back I don't know but I don't think they would have gone back and redrrew all of their plans to make their house go to six more six feet um instead of the three because when I pushed on the apjack nothing happened. It would be too much work to change the plan. Um, there was nowhere else to put the HVAC system, so it has to go right here directly butdding up to our kitchen window. Um, I just I don't know for sure, but that's just our feeling living next to it and it's something that we have to live with now.

Thank you. Yep. Any other members of the public interested in speaking? you could state your name and address.

I'm Howard Hopwood. Um I'm at 723 East Avenue, right across from the new build. Um um we've observed the situation, you know, that whole time. We're not as impacted as Kelly and the G's, but you know, we've seen the whole process. We've seen how they constructed that house where they were on their f they're on uh um Kelly and Dan's property all the time. Nothing was done about that. And I don't see how I don't know why that's something that art could take into account. You can't build a house, you know, and it's this situation and within six feet of another house. Um, I also don't know how big of a problem this is in White Fish Bay generally. I mean, as I've driven around, I haven't seen a situation like this where you have two large houses shouldertosh shoulder this close together. I think if you've driven by that house, those two houses, you can see what the problem is. Um, you know, it's not right that if you, you know, reach out like this that you could touch two houses. Um, so I understand about not changing the setback, but I think ARC is the solution to this and they they ought to be charged with considering how houses are set on a property in relation to other houses. Um, there's no situation like this in our neighborhood where you've got two houses that are this close together. And as I've driven on White Fish Bay, I don't see other situations. I don't know, maybe others we can point that out, but to have two large houses that

are six feet apart, I don't see. Um, and so I I think we concerned about the subjectiv subjectivity, you know, or art, but I don't know that you can avoid that. But it would be helpful to charge them with taking this into account considering how this fits into other properties within the neighborhood, how it fits into the White Fish Bay generally. I don't think there's a lot of situations like this. Thank you. So, thank you. Anyone else? I have a question maybe that came from this discussion and that is perhaps for you Chris um could there be some kind of ordinance about construction trespass you know there's trespassing but what about construction tr trespass if you made it egregiously expensive you would then scare developers off from getting close to the lot line right if you said I'm just going to dream something up like every incident of trespass from a construction process says a million-doll fine, wouldn't you then say, "All right, well, we're going to make sure we're not nowhere near that lot line."

I'm afraid you couldn't you couldn't single out those who were developers. Well, but for example, you could you could have something that was uh trespass of construction equipment. you know, somebody brings a back hole onto your property, but not humans who are Well, the human is already saying you have a penalty enhancer or a separate separate uh violation.

I'm just trying to think of anything out of the box that could help us in this situation that actually might kill two birds with one stone because we have two problems, right? We have we have construction trespass and we also have houses that are too close together, right? And imagine if you could create some kind of penalty that that then you know a developer contractor would say I'm not touching that. That is too close. I am going to I'm going to violate that and have a million dollar fine. Just give that some thought. That's not we're not going to figure that out. But I just if there's some kind of out of the box thinking that we can create

Kevin it sounds like your goal though ultimately would be that people would be further away than 3 ft. Right. So if that is ultimately your goal, I guess I don't understand why we might not be be looking at

okay maybe we need to increase our setback and yes we're going to make a lot of people labeled non-conforming but and then I understand Joel your point but maybe the point the the point about someone's going to keep a wall so that they can go ahead we could easily write that ordinance so that if you are building x percentage additional onto this house, your new setback is now 4 feet. I would, you know, I wouldn't probably go all the way to five, but maybe and and maybe it is that we do need to have a group of people who are from ARC and who are neighbors and who are from village board to really take some time to really think through the because things that we thought were a great idea this first time around, you know, turned out not to be a great idea. I I mean, I would be in favor of looking at that. I'm not afraid of making a bunch of houses legal non-conforming. This is better for

I think there are thousands of them already. So what's the point? I'm not I'm not a person not a fan of that inclus increasing dimensions. I think I think it's eminent domain in a way. You're taking away a foot of everyone's property in White Fish Bay. I just can't put a house on it. No, I'm not a fan. We we already regulate how tall you can build it and and what percentage of this is different cover. This is different. I mean, the argument I would make though is that the sizes of the houses that people are building are so much bigger than the sizes of the houses that were there originally. Yeah. Something

you're taking away a foot of everyone's property in White Fish Bay because in one instance that if they I'm curious about the the notification like you you said he didn't see the letter. I'm actually really curious. Did you did you get the letter in the mail and not open it? Did you not understand what the letter meant? You never received the letter. Well, so like that's an example that's an example of like may and maybe we can increase the notice period to to if if you're building a home like that so the neighbors have time to like dig into what it is, review the plans, maybe maybe share the plans with the neighbors so neighbors can look into it. I I don't think we need to take away a foot of everyone's property because of this situation which may have been something else. I agree as Tara.

Wait, let me know why she misses. It was on Sorry. I don't remember what the situation was with that. It I know you had lived in 726 and then moved to 7:32 and I I don't I think Yeah, I think we mailed it to 732, but it hadn't been your name and so it went somewhere and we wouldn't have mailed it subject. Can I just ask real fast? Kind of last. Yeah. Yeah. Just on the notice issue, I do agree that's a big issue. We're a very tiny village geographically. Um

is there any appetite for have because you said 4.9 units a year. Is there any appetite for having the neighbors have to sign such a or like indicate that they have received notice before this can proceed? I mean, you know, not to put more work on the police department, but the cops used to drop off my village packet every year. So like not only notice it's also the length of time. I mean I'm going through one right now increase

it's it's limited. I mean you have to you have to really be on your game to pay attention and people travel in White Fish Bay. I mean if you're out of town and you can really get hit pretty quickly and maybe that's a situation of just the time alone. She could have went back to the old mailbox as an example. I don't I don't know the situation but I think I think we're changing the rules because of situation which may have been as simple as that. So currently digest everything that plans from brought to my attention rather than trying to right

I wish a lot of things and that's part of it but you know then living in the moment of everything it was too late and basically okay all right well this is how it is so I have what might be a dumb question is there. What is stopping us? And I'm sure Chris will laugh at me for saying this. What is stopping us from doing an ordinance with a with a new build setback?

Nothing. So, we could put an ordinance together that says if you're doing a new build or tear down remodel, the setback is X and it's that just gets rid of the legal non-conforming problem. But, okay.

But that was what I was saying. We'd also have to what what I think what Joel said. The issue with that is going to be someone says, "Yeah, keep one." Well, then then is there I mean I I it seems like a simple especially if they're only 4.9 of them a year. seems like a simple solution that we just we it gets rid of the legal non-conforming issue and it creates an ordinance to where that is specifically for this situation and that might solve the problem for the next one next year or 10 years down the road like Jacob was I personally think it would not be a bad idea for us to have a subcommittee to really look at all of the issues that went and there are probably other things that have come up in ARC as well that just revisits what we're doing and what and and do we need to change an ordinance? I mean, I I don't think we're going to hash that out here with all of us. So, that's just my suggestion.

In the end, we need to give Joel direction. I think we've done that. I think the next thing you're going to do is get on the Arc agenda and get some ideas from them. And would that be a report back situation or do you want to just I think that would be best if I got some ideas as to what would help or what data they would need to um address this situation specifically. Um I and I I'll just use this as a test subject because this is what's in front of us. That's why we're talking about it. And I'll clearly indicate that the trustees felt this was miss is am I fair in I mean absolutely I don't know if everyone thinks that but okay

so that's that's a fair comment that I can share with them how can we avoid this what what would you have needed so what I would say though too that come up with whatever they generate hopefully great stuff um and then also come back with two or three other possibilities of changing it to four feet changing to 5 ft changing to a percentage. Use your imagination. I know we do, you know, percentages of the lot can be permeable and not or built upon, you know, use your imagination. Come back with some impossibilities. All righty. That sound good?

Yeah. And maybe just clarify that this, you know, this isn't a nice looking house. Um, but it's just too close. And it's so close that uh you know as the neighbor said you you literally cannot build it without trespassing. That seems to be a problem. Yeah.

Yeah. How did I I mean there there are ways to build So having that three-foot setback and Sherwood and two of their zoning districts have a three-foot setback. You can build a house with a three-foot setback. That's that's not the issue. There are the problem is there are things that happened outside the builder's control or that made it impossible. I mean, I'm not talking about a backhoe hitting a house. That's a different different thing. But when a bank collapses, now you're into we need to get this restored and you have to trespass to do. But I'm not I'm not making excuses for anyone. It's just I I think I got the direction I need and okay, come back with a report and a couple ideas. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we will uh move on to uh number four, discussion action on MMSD funding for permeable papers on Bowmont Avenue. Mr. Collins.

All right. So, a little bit of background uh just to familiarize the village board. Um, so back on September 15th, uh, village staff received recommendations both from public works committee as well as village board on numerous public improvement projects. One specifically tonight, just a review, is a topic of angle parking on Bulmont Avenue from Council Place to Lake Drive. One part of that recommendation was for Clark deeds to have an alternate design uh to uh put permeable pavers with under drain in order to manage storm water within those angle parking stalls with the stipulation that that would only move forward if we received MMSD uh funding in order to offset that cost differential between the base bid which is just your asphalt parking lot angle parking on Bulmont with the um improvements of the porest pavers and pay for the difference which was approximately $160,000. So fast forward since then uh just a few days ago we received word from MMSD regarding the green infrastructure partnership program the GIPP um that we were preliminary awarded uh partial funding for that improvement. So due to their August of 2025 storm events, uh MMSD announced that they're not giving any community full award of their funding. So they basically dropped everyone down. So it's not just an US thing. It's across all communities that had required or requested competitive funding that they are reducing that in order to pay for their own capital items because of the storm and they just have to uh rebuild a lot of their own infrastructure needs. So um the cost difference just to recap on that the base bit of the parking um came back at $133,630

whereas the permeable pavers was $293290. So those are real numbers that's the actual bids that re received through MSI the general contractor and all their subcontractors. So those are locked in and uh with the project award. So again that's $160,000 difference. So given that $100,000 is going to be awarded, which I received confirmation from the executive director, Kevin Schaefer, last week that he says as soon as it crosses his desk, he will sign that uh funding for us. But again, we'll leave the $60,000 on the table. Um, so of course that puts us in a situation to bring it back to the village board with if there's uh the appetite to fund the remainder the gap of $60,000. So within the memo, there's two options on the table. Uh option one is to approve the funding through MMSD in the amount of $100,000 orund yeah would be $100,000 to support the alternative bid to add permeable parking lot pavers for the green infrastructure on Bulmont Avenue as part of that $160,000 in order to bridge that gap. Whereas the village has $80,000 in contingency funds from TID one borrow that could be used for the purpose of funding that gap. Just as a note, 40,000 of those funds were earmarked for possible future signal timing work. So if the village wants to pursue both the permeable pavers and the signal timing at the total cost of $100,000, the remaining 20,000 could be reallocated for future um future borrow um subject change the charge at to tit number one. So that's option one. Option two would just be to pursue proceed with the base bid of the asphalt parking and not accept the MMSD funding for the perial pavers and just move forward without that improvement.

So, one thing to note is the village board did approve um the additional storm sewer. It's a 24in recommended storm sewer to run parallel on Bowont Avenue from Council to Lake Drive. So with the two things on the table, this is substantial improvements to our storm water management along that corridor. So this is complimentary I would say between the two different uh infrastructure storm water infrastructure improvements because the uh pavers have more of that I would say localized peak surface flow uh benefit for that first half inch of stormfall whereas the additional 24 in storm water main that's in that area is truly going to help out more regionally I would say from council avenue uh all the storm water coming uh from north going to south where it hits the intersection of council from Bulmont and enters that storm water uh drain and exits out to Silver Spring Park. So, it's it's very complimentary that there's added benefit both during a heavy rain with the permeable pavers to capture that storm water as well as overall adding that storm wa uh storm sewer with that $100,000 that was already approved by the village board. So, it's staff's recommendation that now is the appropriate time during construction to move forward and bridge that gap with the additional uh $60,000 coming out of TID one out of the contingency because this is the best time to manage storm water in this area. So, that is our recommendations, but there are two options for the village board to consider this evening.

I mean, we have storm water problems. We specifically have storm water problems in that area, right? And this is just another arrow in the quiver. And although it stinks that we're not getting everything paid for, I mean, we're still getting it at a pretty significant discount. And so I feel like, at least for me, feels like a no-brainer. Agree%. I have maybe a question for Sam. Do do you have any thoughts about the 60,000 coming out of the TID one contingency versus just any other storm, a borrow versus anything?

Yeah. is we we put the other storm project out of the storm fund, right? I think the only difference here is that it's specifically related to surface infrastructure changes related to the TID. So, it's part of those parking stalls. So, to me, in some ways, it feels different. Like using the TID here feels more reasonable, I would say, because we're already changing the surface. But I could see it either way. I think made it we would have the exact same discussion we did two weeks ago, four weeks ago about preserving TID funds. That's true. Yeah, that's that's was the only thing in my head. I don't have an opposition to it. Like what was what way?

What made you pick TID funds versus Storm? Putting you on the spot. No, that's okay. I will always pick Tid. You're always going to pick Tid One Fun. Um because Yeah. I mean, I agree though it is parking which benefits the district. I understood the logic of using storm water more before than I do in this application. Those parking STS are being created for the businesses particularly because the last project to Matt's point was regional in its benefits. So, the benefit in theory is benefiting wider than the TID. That was my logic behind it. But I All right. I don't have a strong Last time we had this argument, you said team storm and that was really cool. So that's part of the reason that I joined.

That was So now you're off of team Storm and on team team. I'm team TID this week. Team Storm. Switching teams. Okay. Uh in which case um perhaps we are at a point where someone would like to make option motion number four. school. I move that the village board approve option number one in the amount of $160,000 with $100,000 in funding from MMSD GIP funding and $60,000 in funding from one contingency to support the Bulmont Avenue permeable paver and green infrastructure improvements. Thank you. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Thank you, Brian. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Uh moving on. Number five, discussion action on ordinance 1924 amending municipal code 1729 updating the municipal court costs. Chief,

yeah, so this one is pretty self-explanatory. In 2025, Wisconsin passed Act 113, which is was eventually signed into law by the governor. Um, this act allows municipalities to increase court costs. Um, as of last year, the the maximum court cost allowed was $38. This ups it to $48. Our current court costs in White Fish Bay are set at $23 for each separate incident. Um, you can look at the the table for the last several years, um, our expenditures for municipal court far outweigh the money brought in by court costs. Um, the last time the legislature allowed an increase was 2013. Um, so I think this is long coming. Any questions for the chief? All right. Well, in that case, um, I'd entertain motion number five.

I move the village board approve ordinance number 1927 increasing municipal court cost to $48 on each separate matter. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. Tara, thank you. Any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Finally, discussion action on the memorandum of understanding with the city of Glendale and Shorewood for the planning, development, and shared use of a salt storage facility.

Um, I'll take this one. Um, although I'm Matt, I'm sure we'll be happy to jump in as needed. So, the village currently owns a parcel in Glendale at 5111 Lidell, which we use as our only DPW yard site, and it's also the sole place that we currently um store salt. This use on that site is legal non-conforming, which significantly limits the village's ability to invest or improve that facility. Essentially, it means we can maintain what we have um but we really can't build a lot of new things or we um risk no longer being legal non-conforming and not being able to use that site for our purposes at all. Um the village's existing salt storage area um at this site has operational challenges mostly dealing with clearance height and ability to operate equipment within the space and is also in need of repair. Um so that this has brought us to the point of kind of starting to explore alternative options. Uh, one option for this summer is that the city of Glendale is planning to replace their salt storage facility. They actually are under a requirement essentially from the DNR to replace it and so they do have to do that work this summer. Um, Shorewood is also in need of um, a lot of different DPW sites, but salt storage being one of them. And so that's presented the opportunity to potentially partner with Glendale and Shorewood for a new salt storage facility that would be located at the existing Glendale DPW site which is essentially be behind the village hall if that helps you visualize it. Um they have already bid out this project. So this is unique like they have bids back. They have a contractor. Um they have offered to um redesign the facility to accommodate what would be the shared needs of Glendale Shorewood and White Fish Bay. I do want to just briefly run through what those needs are because operationally it is a little bit different for White Fish Bay than it is for Glendale and Shorewood. The combined salt needs of the three communities are 2900 tons in terms of what would be stored at that facility. I don't want

you guys to look at the Shorewood numbers and say why do they use less salt than that than us? They don't actually. It's that they're going to you store some of their salt within their existing site. And so their need at the Glendale site is different than our need. Um so the combined need is 2900 tons. We are currently designing a facility or would design a facility for 2,000 tons. I did the math today. Um that 2,000 is based on 15 ft of storage of the salt which requires no specialized equipment which is really important because then you start to talk about conveyor belts, expensive things to maintain and all sorts of things. But if we were in a really tight spot and we wanted to go up to 18 feet, which that facility would accommodate, we'd have to purchase the specialized equipment, but that could get us to 2400 tons. So closer to that 2,900. Um, but the initial plans would be to just design for 2,000. Um, because that's not sufficient capacity for all three communities, what that would mean is that we would be having at least two deliveries of salt per year. Currently in White Fish Bay, we do one delivery per year. So there is a risk profile to that. Now I don't want to make it sound crazy scary because it's not Glendale and Shore would offer or work and operate within this environment currently, but there are situations like this year we were calling every single day um that was on Pat's work list because we were trying to get a delivery. We were very very short um and he was very diligent and that was because the trucks were being used to deliver materials to the data centers. So, it wasn't that the salt wasn't in the facility, it's that we couldn't get the salt from Milwaukee to our location. I have worked um within my career in situations where salt has been in barges in the middle of the ocean and hasn't been delivered and there's been delays for that. So, it does happen. Um but it what that means is that we would ration um we have verbally agreed between the three communities that it wouldn't be prioritization for Glendale. So, it

would be important to get that in writing, but that the three communities would agree to a level of rationing collectively if we were up against that type of situation. Um, but there's a risk profile there that is much lower currently based on how we operate. Um, also going to the cost right now, I'm feeling much better about the cost. We actually got updated pricing from the contractor today. So, the total all-in cost would be one around 1.1 million. The village's estimated cost if we do based on our percentage of tonnage to to the entire project would be 34%. Um so our um village contribution to the project from a capital perspective would be around $381,000. For comparison um John when he was doing his analysis for Sigma was estimating the one ton facility uh at Lidell 16 months ago to be 500,000. So there's definitely savings here. Um I I would say that 16 months ago that that price would be higher. So I'd say between $100 and $200,000 in savings of capital costs, but there are ongoing operating and maintenance costs considerations. Like Glendale will have real expenses associated with pushing up salt activity, loading and unloading, um measuring the tonnage. Right now we don't really have to do that, but they're going to have to be calculating and billing. Um, and so there will be some level of markup, whether that be a onetime fee each year or a percentage and when I worked in Wau County, it was a percentage per ton of salt that you paid on top for overhead, but something like that would be negotiated that we would be paying ongoing. There's also the question of ongoing maintenance costs and uh eventually capital replacement costs that would have to be negotiated in the IGA. So, where we're at right now, um, the stakes are much lower this evening, right? The theoue is literally just we we agree to sit around a table and to discuss these things and

the village agrees that we will pay for the design and legal expenses if we decide to not move forward. But I do think you know there is there is this greater question of partnership right like if you know as a board this isn't really something that we're all that interested in given their timeline and all of our desires to be good neighbors and peers. It's best to have those conversations I think now because we're going to move really fast. I put the timeline in the um in the agenda because I wanted everyone to know like it's this is a very strict timeline. So May all the communities are considering theou. It's actually on the Shorewood agenda this evening. June we would be looking at final design of the expanded facility and the draft IGA. July would be the board action. There's one meeting in July. So there'd be the board action where you all would consider that IGA in the change order and then they move into construction with substantial completion in December and there's just there's really not flexibility in that timeline.

I have a couple of questions. Yeah, I love questions. So in terms of um the volume and so I was thinking a lot about the operation piece. Do you think that we use salt at the same rate that Glendale and Shwood does do?

I I would say similar for sure. I I know that Glendale does a lot of brining, but we're working as a Northshore collective to do more, I would say, regional approach of how we do our winter weather operations with shared technology, sensors, brining operations. So we're having those discussions behind the scenes in order to optimize salt usage or maximize it. So it's not like reducing salt like we're trying to get away from it, but just trying to be more efficient and effective with salt usage to put it where it belongs. So Glendale, I think they're, you know, a step ahead of us as far as that. But we're working with uh nonprofit organizations like SaltWise in order to be more conscientious of that. So I think over the next 5 years I think our operations is going to look very similar to Glendale's at the very least and I'm I'm sure Shorewood's going to be right behind as far as salt and it's not only a DNR compliance um topic that we have to have as far as our MS4 permitting but as far as cost effectiveness and operational strategy.

Okay. The reason I ask is, you know, if we are having to do the second round of the second order or even a third potentially, and if one community is using it at a much faster rate, then then the stuff that we may have been counting on might be gone because some another another municipality used more than their share, you know, and and that was just something I obviously I'm not going to solve right now, but just want to make sure that you're thinking about that as you're going into this. Yeah, that actually recalled the the way that it works. So, this model is very common in Wakau County. Almost all the communities use county salt facilities. Uh they the way it works is you order at the beginning of a year and then they you basically track against what you pay for. Okay.

So, you pay by the tonnage and then you track based on your utilization. But I appreciate you bringing that up because that could be part of the IGA. Well, obviously there's there's loss, right? Not the measuring tools are not even close to perfect for sure, but you could get a rough estimate of you've spent you've used 50% of what you've ordered and you have, you know, 500 tons left versus another community that has 200 ton left. Okay. I'm just thinking when it comes into play if if we can't get another round, you know, making sure. And then the other piece, I know you talked about the brining in here. Would we still maintain our own brining facilities or would all of the brining be done central? you know, all the brine making be done centrally.

As of right now, yes, our Brian equipment machines over at 5111 is still functional. So, that's our plan is to keep a minimum batch within our facility in order to make Brian as needed because we have all that necessary equipment. Now, it's within the CIP long term that everything has an expected useful life, but that's future thinking. So, we're going to have to come back to public works committee, village board with probably scenarios and options about what do we do? And we don't really have that crystal ball of what our facility will look like, the legal non-conforming status of what that may affect as far as our salt brining operation. And is there a cost-effective collaboration that maybe we do partner with Glendale and it's cheaper, more effective, and we're able to store brine uh in a satellite location still to optimize that service. So,

so do you en envision Oh, sorry. So, I want to be clear about like the language though is that the idea is that we would be in on their brine long term or have that option. I'm not saying immediately we have to cut over, but it would give us that option to be able to fill and with the salt tonnage, we wouldn't be necessarily buying the equipment, but would have the option to basically pay a set rate similar to what Shorewood does here now, right? Um because I think that the equipment is up for replacement in two to three years. So, at least I'd want it in the agreement as an option and maybe we don't do it. But we can still maintain ours until it dies. Yeah. Essentially. Yep. Do you envision we would have no salt over on Lidell starting immediately this winter?

No, we we actually have the old salt storage facility, that wooden shed that used to be used for salt and now it's for top soil. So, similar to Shorewood is we do want to have that as an available sheltered area that we can unload from to keep our trucks clean. kind of just remove the rest of the salt so we don't have that sitting in their hoppers for a long period of time or prepare for that that storm that maybe we can do a secondary load of an operation that in the if it's a bigger snow event we don't want to have to haul all the way back to Glendale even though it's six minutes still more efficient for us to have a little bit of spare within that facility so keeping a couple hundred ton give or take that would help us out substantially

so I just went to lunch last week with the DPW foreman in Sussex and was like picking his brain about this and he was like, "This is so that's so critical because the measuring the tonnage on the way back is just it's not accurate. It's a pain." He's like, "You're just going to want to drop drop on your own site." Uh, so I and I also want to maintain that usage. So say like the world collapses and we that partnership doesn't work, however things are written, then we still have been utilizing that site for that purpose and we haven't essentially from the legal non-conforming perspective lost our rights within that. So yes, as a as a backup plan and I think operationally Matt's team's going to want that. Okay.

And we've had conversations with our DPW leadership team, Superintendent Foreman, all the technicians and I brought them up to speed on this and they all understand and are bought into this process both with the Glendale shared service as well as backing up and having some of that salt. So that was important to our staff too to make sure we had at least a little bit of a backup supply at 5111. Perfect. Matt, one other question kind of the converse of this. We talk about running out of salt. If we over buy today, what happens to the leftover salt? Do we keep it for next year or just sits in there?

Correct. Yeah, it's more whatever we don't use, we just basically buy to fill that gap to get to,000 tons for that next winter season. So, okay. If we only use 600 and there's 400 left there, we just purchase. How is that going to work under this new arrangement? The same way. Yeah. Yeah. or like a couple different ways that you can do it, but based on my experience, that's what you would just carry it over to the next year. You would do there would have to be some level of true up. I don't exactly know how that works. What's the useful life of salt? I was just going to ask that. Does it expire? Yeah, I was I was wondering with a brand new facility indefinitely.

Really? If you keep it dry and the humid humidity and temperatures and circulation, that's not a factor. Okay. So, but you don't have to rotate the stock. I've never done that before. That that was what I was wondering. Do you have to dispose every year? Okay. I think we've gone too far into the weeds on Margarita.

Uh I love this idea. You know, kernels of it occurred two three years ago at the public works committee meeting when we first started talking about 511 laid and how like can we build something for more than one community. So I'm I'm thrilled that it's going to work out somewhere and we can offload that. Hey, I am too. Just before we go, and I'm sure this is not an issue and it would be all hammered out in the language of uh the final contract, but Glendale and Whitefish Bay have not always seen eye to eye. Um I just want to be sure that we're protected in this process and that we're not going to be either in a position where they have leverage over us to either pass a policy or get something they want or, you know, we just wind up in a situation where we don't have access to salt.

Yeah. I so theou I know it's short but there's I I will tell you there's one sentence that concerns me the most and it's that they have rights to buy us out and I I haven't talked most of my meetings with and Carl have been over the phone and trying to figure this out in between projects and such. So I'm hoping there's more flexibility in that. But it is possible. I'll be honest. We don't have a lot of flexibility. It's on their land. It's the project they were already doing that we're joining. Like our negotiating position isn't incredibly strong. Um but I will try to get that out. But it that's a risk profile, right? If they can buy us out at any moment,

they cut a check for $400,000 and all of a sudden we're out. But then add in a, you know, 18 to 24 month window of Yeah. Yep. But then we have to find a site and we scramble. But it is what it is. We we would put the same clause in if we were offering the service too. So I All right. Um I think we're Let's get motion number six. I move that the village board approve the memorandum of understanding with the city of Glendale and village of Shorewood for the planning, development, and shared use of a salt storage facility. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second.

Thank you, Sam. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. And now we have one last thing to do. Move to adjurnn, Mr. President. Thank you. And do we have a second? Second. I'm going to give that to Anna. Well, thank you. Uh, any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We'rejourned. Thank you so much, everyone.