Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2003

Home

Page 4 -- July 25, 2003 7.]3, 104 there. The local ordinances required a 75-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark for all structures adjacent to any navigable water and wetlands. The trust applied for a variance that would allow construction 34 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the flowage. tn the application, the trust noted the variance was necessary because of a new zoning regulation and "more stringent and restrictive interpretations of various terms used in zoning." Further, the trust stated that when they pur- chased the land in 1993, the lot was buildabte, but now it. was not. FinaLly, the trust stated that a variance would not be contrary to public interest because the current buffer zone and septic requirements would make any harm negligible, since the area remained 90 percent undeveloped. The application was den/ed, and the trust appealed to the Sawyer CounU Board of Appeals. At the heating on July 17, 2001, the trust emphasized its situation was unique "because of the location, because of the wetland, because of the text amendment change." The board voted to grant the variance, but did not determ/ne that the lot was unique or that the variance was in the public interest. The state appealed, and the lower court afl/treed the board's decision. The state appealed again. DECISION: Reversed. The board's decision to gant a var'iance was reversed. The statute required someone seeking a variance to prove that 1) he or she would suffer an "unnecessar? hardship" if the variance was not ganted; 2) the hardship was unique to the property and not a condition personal to the land- owner, such as a mere inconvenience; 3) the hardship was not self<rested; 4) the hardship was weighed against the purpose of the zon/ng restriction; and 5) the variance could not be contrary ro the public interest. The trust failed to prove its property was unique. There were other such properties, and the trust did not provide evidence proving irs property was the only one with these characteristics. The court also noted the board failed to make this determination. Since the board did not follow a correct theory of law in granting the vari- ance, its decision granting the variance was reversed. Citation: ~rare of Wisconsi~ v. Sawyer County Board of Appeals, Cot~ of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. III, No. 02-1d48 (2003). see also: Arndorfer v. Saute Coutz~; Board of Adjusrme~t, 469 iV. W. 2d 83] (1991). Setbacks -- Marina owner builds storage sheds within 8 feet of property line Setback requirement had been reduced frorn 50 feet to. 6feet CONNECTICUT (6/10/0.3) ~ Dodson Boatyard owned and operated a ma- nna. The previous owner also used the property for the same purpose. Parr of the property rested ,;v/thin town l/inks. That portion wit/fin the town