Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/1998

Home

Page 6 September 25, 1998 Z.B. Special Exception -- Developer wants permit to build additional homes along river Citation: Ammerman v. Adams County Board of Adjustment, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 4, No. 97-2970 (1998) Ammerman wanted to build three or four log homes on a nearly one-and-a- half-acre lot on the Wisconsin River. To create room for more than two homes, he had to get a special exception permit to fill and grade part of the lot so it was above the floodplain. He also needed a retaining wall to protect the fill and prevent runoff. The county board of adjustment can grant special exception permits after considering a number of factors including: safety and health, prevention and control of water pollution, existing features of the site, location of the site with respect to floodplains and floodways, potential for erosion, and compatibility with nearby uses. The board had to give preference to domestic uses. Ammerman applied for a permit. Neighbors objected to the permit, citing the danger of runoff and sedimentation, aesthetic reasons, and the introduction of a commercial venture into a single-family residential area. The board denied the permit. Ammerman modified his plan to build one less home, but the board again rejected it. The board said allowing Ammerman to fill and grade riverside Iand would set an undesirable precedent, requiring it to grant the same privilege to others. Ammerman appealed to court. The court reversed, holding the board had to make its decision based on Ammerman's individual circumstances, without regard to the precedent-setting consequences. Two people familiar with the area said the lot was made up of nonabsorbing soil clay. Officials described Ammerman's plan as'"overdevelopment." The board again denied the permit. It cited the possibility of runoff, pollu- tion, and soil erosion. It also said Ammerman didn't need a special exception permit because he could still develop part of the property. The court affirmed, finding the board's reasoning was enough to support its decision. Ammerman appealed. He argued the court didn't have the authority to re- turn the case to the board after its first decision. DECISION: Affirmed. The board properly denied Ammerman a special exception permit. Courts could return a case to a board for further proceedings when the board's decision was irrational. The board could reasonably find the soil could cause runoff and the planned walls could cause erosion. Ammerman had no evidence to show he needed an additional house on a filled-in area. see also: A rndorfer v. Sauk County Board of Adjustment, 469 N. W. 2d 831 (l~ 991). see also: Petersen v. Dane County, 402 N. W. 2d 376 (1987).