Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

Z.B. February 15, 1996 -- Page 3 The trial court improperly determined that Stanchfield properly filed the certificate of survey and created a valid land division. Under the statute and Commerce Department rules, a certificate of survey could not be filed unless it showed all monuments set during the survey. Those monuments had to be set before the certificate got filed. Stanchfield did not allege the monuments were not set because of construction activity, and there was no exception for weather conditions. Surveyors' common practices could not override clearly stated laws and regulations. Setback Requirements -- Owner Seeking Variance Had No Idea Setbacks Would Change State v. Winnebago County, 540 N. W. 2d 6 (W~sconsin) 1995 Thiel owned a 33.7-acre, L-shaped parcel in Winnebago County, Wis. The property's base ran along a highway; the western portion extended north to Lake Poygan. The property had limited highway frontage, and a private road was necessary to access proposed home sites along its .western edge. In 1965, Thiel dredged a channel flowing south along the property's east- ern edge. The channel was created with residenti~al development in mind, and allowed for the shoreline setbacks and road requirements then in effect. Around 1993, Thiel wanted to subdivide the property and sell it to a devel- oper. The developer thought the land was suitable for eight units. By that time, the shoreline setbacks and road requirements changed so only a 20- foot-wide strip was buildable on the property's western edge. Thiel asked the county Board of Adjustment for a variance'from the shore- line setbacks, cI~.iming it would enhance the subdivision and create a higher tax base. Thiel did not provide certified surveys showing the effects of the setback requirements, but did give the board hand-drawn "site-plans." Thiel claimed there was about 200 feet of property between the road and the chan- nel, and about 175 feet between the channel and the western border on the portion extending up to the lake. Thiel said he "certainly had no idea" the setback and roadway requirements would change. A nearby landowner objected to the variance, claiming Thiel's measure- ments were wrong. The state Department of Natural Resources, which devel- oped water conservation standards and recommended standards and criteria to local municipalities, also objected. The department claimed any hardship was self-created, the land was not unique, and was also concerned about increased water run-off ir~to Lake Poygan. The board evaluated the land as having two components; the four lots along the base and the four lots along the western edge. The board granted the variance to cover the four western lots, but denied the variance for the buildable lots along the base. The board found the western lots could not be developed to their highest and best use without a variance, and the new require- ments uniquely affected Thiel's property because he made his initial invest~ ment 30 years before.