Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/2002

Home

Page 4 -- October 25, 2002 z.g. the department could lose its insurance coverage if it provided such assurances. In another letter, the fine chief stated he could not guarantee £~e depart- ment response to emergency calls from the Stoetzelst property, as its ability to respond would depend on debris in the roadway, breakdowns of department vehicles, and other calls. He stated its response to calls from the S toetzels' property would be the same as others from .similarly situated properties. On appeal, the Stoetzels' argued the series of letters from the chief of the fire department; read together, should have provided the board with sufficient assurances requ/ring it to approve their conditional use permit. DECISION: Reversed. The court reversed the court's decision, finding nothing in the letters:from the fire chief refuted the possibility that it could be impossible to provide emer- gency services to the property during a flood. The second letter plainly refused to provide any assurances based on insurance concerns, and the third letter was a statement of the department's general policy, which was to refuse to provide assurances due to a number of events aside from flooding. The fire department cliief merely stated the property would be given the same amount of attention as other similarly situated properties. These fell short of an actual assurances it would be able to provide emer- gency services during a flood. The board?s decision was reasonable, and should not have been reversed. Citation: Stoetzet v. Washington County Board of Adjustment, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, No. 02-0330 (2002) 24 Nonconforming Use -- Residents oppose additional development of ski resort They argue expansion of nonconforrning uses violated zoning ordinance ILLINOIS (9/I7/02) -- The Chestnut Mountain ski resor~ was developed in -1959. The resort included a hotel., restaurants, a pool, golf-putting green, ten- his courts, and illuminated parking. The west-northwest slope of the mountain was developed with downhill ski trails, chair lifts, flood lights, loud~speakers, an a/pine slide, and snowmaking and grooming machines. The eastern slope was not developed· before 1997, having just a sewage treatment fac/]ity, an unpaved bike trail, and a retention pond. The Jo Davis County ordinance was approved and became effective in 1995. The many owners of the resort (collectively, Chestnut Mountain), opened a · new snowboarding facility, called' the "Far Side" and a new building on the eastern slope of the mountain called the "Village Ski Center" in 1997. The development of the Far Side Property included land clearance, a ski trail and terrain park. for snowboarders, a chair/fit, utilities, floodlights, snow grooming machines, and signs. Chestnut Mountain did not apply for any zoning permits prior to commencing this development. Several owners of nearby property (collectively, Fisher) asked the court for an order prohibiting the "unauthorized" operation of the Far Side. Fisher later