Lakewood Board of Adjustment Meeting
Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
(Recessed meeting from July 10)
Lakewood Town Hall
Call to order: Board of Adjustment chair Steve Geving called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM.
Present: Chair Geving, members Kerry Leider and Ann Cutts, Zoning Administrator Brennan Mears, Recorder David Gerhart, and members of the public (see attached register).
Pledge of Allegiance: The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was recited by all present.
Minutes of July 10, 2007 meeting, Wendy Robertson variance hearing: The Town received a letter from Wendy Robertson dated July 12 that requested a meeting to negotiate the establishment of a suitable turnaround for fire and emergency vehicles at or near her property on Lauren Road. These negotiations were a condition attached to the variance granted to Robertson on July 10. Motion by Leider to approve the minutes of the July 10 meeting (Robertson variance hearing only), second by Cutts. Motion carried.
Recessed public hearing from July 10 for Bill Ulland variance.
The purpose of this hearing was to take action on the variance request by Bill Ulland to construct a driveway within the shoreland area of the Lester River with access from North Tischer Road. The hearing had been recessed pending written opinions from DNR Waters, DNR Fisheries, and the Soil and Water Conservation District. Louise Friday, potential purchaser of the parcel, presented emails from the three agencies listed above. None of the agency representatives had objections to granting the variance. R.C. Boheim of SWCD stated in his email that there would be no impact on wetlands associated with road construction. Deserae Hendrickson of DNR Fisheries stressed the need to be extra diligent with erosion control during construction. Patty Fowler of DNR Waters noted the importance of no construction taking place within the bluff impact zone, and she also emphasized that adequate erosion control measures be taken.
Cutts asked about the definition of the bluff impact zone and was told that it was the area of steep grade adjacent to the river. Mears' primary concern was erosion control and suggested installation of a double silt fence, especially since fill will be imported for driveway construction. Both Mears and Mike Metso of Krech-Ojard and Associates stated that the driveway will follow the existing ridge topography to minimize the amount of fill needed. Metso stated that the closest point the driveway will come to the river is about 120 feet. This is shown on the engineering plan for the driveway.
Leider suggested that a condition of the variance be that the driveway come no closer to the river than 120 ft. Considerable discussion followed regarding the placement of the driveway.
Motion by Leider, seconded by Cutts to approve the variance pending further discussions relating to conditions to be attached to the variance.
Cutts expressed concern that granting this variance would set a precedent regarding river setbacks. Mears said that each variance is a unique situation and that no precedent is being set. Friday pointed out that there is nowhere else to put the road. Leider stated that the unique topography of this site justifies granting the variance. Geving stated that the applicant had done an excellent job in presenting engineering plans for the driveway and said that no precedent would be set because in this case there are no alternatives for the driveway location.
In discussing conditions to be attached to the variance, Friday mentioned that it had previously been suggested that the driveway should serve only one house. Mears mentioned a potential condition might be to limit application of road salt to the driveway in winter to reduce the impact of runoff on the river. He said that a second condition might be to require that the driveway must meet the specs in the engineering plan. Much discussion followed regarding how far the driveway might deviate from the specs in the plan. Mears will inspect during construction to ensure compliance with the plan. The consensus was that the driveway should not vary more than 10 feet from the centerline described in the engineering plan.
Three conditions were attached to the variance:
1) The variance is granted for one single family residence.
2) The actual driveway centerline may not vary more than 10 feet from the design proposal provided.
3) The zoning administrator shall verify placement and setback compliance during construction.
The motion to approve the variance with the conditions stated above was approved 2-0.
Motion to adjourn by Cutts at 8:15 PM. Second by Leider.
Respectfully submitted,
David Gerhart