New Zoning Administrator Named

Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk announced that she has filled the vacant seat of Zoning Administrator yesterday. See the related story in the Wisconsin State Journal here.

I don't know much about Roger Lane but hopefully the additional of someone on staff in this department will help move all issues forward regarding the Zoning Department for Dane County.

Time will tell.....

Here We Go Again!

Just when I thought this fight regarding private property owner rights and county government was at bay there's a new ordinance amendment floating through the channels that would take away the grandfather clause of any substandard lots in the shoreland district for EVER!

In a bold move, Sup. Bruskewitz has proposed an amendment to Ch. 11 of Dane County zoning ordinance stating that substandard lots in a shoreland district may be used as a building site. This passed through the Zoning and Land Regulation committee on a 2-1 vote last week.

Sounds good right? Wrong. The fear is this amendment will see an amendment added to change the word "may be used as a building site" to "may NOT be used as a building site". This may happen when this amendment comes before the full Dane County Board. The next meeting of the Dane County Board is slated for Thursday, April 4 at 7 p.m. As of today there's nothing regarding this amendment on the agenda. The next meeting will then be April 19 at 7 p.m.

Let the Fight Begin

For those following the process I've gone through in getting "approval" to build 2 homes on lots purchased near the UW Arboretum in January 2006, you might know we've been granted the variance requests we were pursuing on February 22, 2007.

Time to celebrate right?

Wrong, this is just the beginning of a larger battle. 1 week prior to the variance hearing in front of the Dane County Board of Adjustment, my business partners and I filed suit in circuit court against the Dane County Board of Adjustment. Some might think now that our variance has been granted, we should drop this suit. This is not our intent. Let me explain why.

The basis of the suit is over a decision the BOA made in November 2006 which now requires any and all property owners who fall with in the Shoreland Zone (within 1000 feet of navigable lakes, rivers, streams) must now request a variance for any type of improvements being done on their land if their lot is considered "substandard" by current zoning code. For this purpose, a substandard lot is one that is less than 15,000 sq. ft. in size if the lot is serviced by a municipal sewer system or 20,000 sq. ft. if the lot is serviced by a private septic system. For some context on how large these sq. ft. requirements are for a sewered lot it would need to be 100x150 feet in size to meet the minimum requirements. The 20,000 foot requirement for a lot serviced by septic would be NEARLY 1/2 Acre in SIZE .

Needless to say, our expectation is this will affect well over 1000 property owners in Dane County and could even be greater than that.

So here's how it now works. You own property which is now considered a substandard lot. You decide you'd like to add on to the home to create more living space for you and your family. Your addition doesn't exceed any setback requirements, lot coverage maximums, etc... You make a trip to Dane County Zoning to apply for a zoning permit to start your project. You are now told you must file for a variance request with the BOA. This filing has a deadline of approximately 1 month prior to the next meeting to be placed on the agenda AND you must pay a filing fee of $350. Let's say you missed the deadline for the next meetings agenda, you must wait nearly 2 months to have your variance request heard!

Now you're starting to get mad because it seems the rules have changed and you had no idea that this had happened. Welcome to the world of Dane County land use politics!

This is the reason we're continuing with our lawsuit. I would invite anyone interested to let me know if you'd like to be included in the suit as we've already had other interested parties join in.

You can reach me at 608-662-9501 or e-mail darren@idcnet.com

Variance Hearing on Arboretum Development Has Greater Impact

The variance hearing for the ‘arboretum’ lots owned by GCK and Dave Investments is going before the Board of Adjustment tomorrow Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 6:30 PM.

Just to bring some items to light based on the actions of the Board of Adjustments. If you have a substandard lot in the shoreland district you are now required to apply for a variance for anything your propose to construct or alter on your property. Your attendance at this hearing will provide you with first hand experience of the process, the costs, and the reasoning and justification you will have to provide to obtain a variance.

There are thousands of substandard lots in the unincorporated areas of Dane County that will require a variance, however, the Acting Zoning Administrator and Zoning Department made the decision to require only lots in the shoreland district to be subject to the variance process. While it's believed the Zoning Administrator can make this decision, it leaves many property owners in the dark about when this decision will apply to them.

An issue of concern is that these substandard lots need an environmental mitigation plan, yet there are no standards for these plans and the agencies that would review the plans have not agreed to do so yet. GCK and Dave Investments will be introducing plans that incorporate the principals of Limited Impact Development for the 2 lots they are proposing the variance approval. In addition, the Lakes and Watershed Commission and the Department of Land and Water Resources have not had input into what would constitute a protective mitigation plan. NR 115, the state law that is currently being drafted by some of the best scientists in the state are still working on standards for waterway protection and mitigation plans that promote infiltration of storm water. By their own admission, the BOA members are not experts in this area, yet an applicant is required to provide a mitigation plan that will be judged by a BOA without credentials and must meet undetermined standards.

A variance decision may be appealed to circuit court. This is expensive and time consuming. There is work underway by County Supervisor Eileen Bruskewitz along with some others to find a legislative solution to this BOA decision that could pass the County Board.

It is troubling that many property owners with lots less than 100 feet wide at the setback line, don't have lot area square footage required (20,000 sq. ft. if unsewered, 15,000 if sewered) are not aware of the impact the BOA decision will have, or even that the shoreland district is 1000 feet (about 2.5 city blocks) from a lake or 300 feet back from a river, stream, or any navigable waterway.

There are many sub-issues here and I know you will learn a lot about your property rights at the Board of Adjustment hearing It is an open meeting to the public and it will be held on Thursday, February 22, 2007 in Room 309 (third floor) of the city county building.

Many of you attended the hearing on Ordinance Amendment 10. Your attendance is needed again and it is our hope you will take time to be present. You do not need to speak unless you wish to address issues that are before the Board of Adjustment. Please invite others who are affected by this decision.

Here We Go...Governor Doyle to Propose 1st Tax Increase

REALTORS Oppose Doyle’s Tax on The American Dream

Statement from the Wisconsin REALTORS® Association
February 13, 2007


Madison –Governor Doyle’s budget proposal to increase the real estate transfer tax is a tax increase on the American Dream of homeownership according to the Wisconsin REALTORS Association (WRA). “This is a tax increase of $140 million on homeownership that will hurt housing affordability in Wisconsin,” said Roger Rushman, Chairman of the WRA. “Raising the price of housing will turn some ‘could be’ homeowners into ‘won’t be’ homeowners overnight,” Rushman said. He said the Realtors will vigorously oppose the Governor’s plan.

The Realtors also questioned why Governor Doyle proposed the tax increase after promising not to raise taxes. “The Governor said he’s against raising taxes,” said Rushman, who is the Executive Vice President of First Weber Group Realtors of Milwaukee. “This is a tax increase pure and simple. I think homeowners across Wisconsin will not be happy.”

According to WRA President Bill Malkasian, the current transfer tax is $498 on a median priced $166,000 home in Wisconsin. Under the Governor’s plan, this tax will increase to $830. “These costs cannot be financed through a mortgage,” says Malkasian. “This tax must be paid in full, up front, right when a new homeowner must incur numerous other closing costs. This will price many families out of their American Dream.”

In addition to its adverse impact on housing affordability, the Realtors also argue the tax is regressive and discriminatory since lower income households pay a larger percentage of their incomes on housing. “Young families need affordable housing and a thriving housing market needs first time home buyers,” Malkasian said. “When you raise this tax you raise the barrier to buying a home for thousands of Wisconsin families. This is a bad idea for Wisconsin families, Wisconsin’s real estate market, and Wisconsin’s economy.”

Shoreline Rights Contested

January 25, 2007

MATTHEW DeFOUR mdefour@madison.com- Wisconsin State Journal

Terry and Debbie Nelson thought they had found the perfect place to build their retirement home: a small lot on Lake Waubesa with a ramshackle house fit for demolition. They were worried, however, when Dane County last year proposed amending its zoning ordinance to limit building on substandard lots in shoreland districts.

For decades, zoning administrators have interpreted a section of the law as a "grandfather clause" for smaller lots that existed before the shoreland zoning law took effect in 1970. In October, the Nelsons along with dozens of other property owners voiced their opposition at a public hearing, after which the sponsors of the ordinance amendment agreed to withdraw their proposal.

But on Nov. 29, the Board of Adjustment, the county's quasi- judicial zoning appeals panel, voted 3-2 to overturn the zoning administrator's interpretation of the "grandfather clause" in the case of a developer who wants to build two houses on substandard lots in the UW- Arboretum. On Wednesday, zoning officials confirmed they "will treat all new applications for development of substandard sized lots in the shoreland district in a manner consistent with the Dane County Board of Adjustment decision."Assistant zoning administrator Kris Schutte didn't know how many properties in unincorporated parts of the county will be affected, but a senior planner found during the ordinance amendment debate that about 2,000 parcels would have been affected by that proposal.

But that doesn't include property owners like the Nelsons, who want to knock down an existing house and build a new one.

Because of the increased number of property owners affected, one County Board member has described the Board of Adjustment decision as the "ordinance amendment on steroids." The Board of Adjustment decision requires hundreds, if not thousands, of property owners within 1,000 feet of lakefronts to jump through another hoop and could jeopardize their investment.

In order for the Nelsons to build on their lot, which is 50 feet wide, they will need to file for a variance, which costs $350. Previously, they only needed a building permit from the town and a zoning permit from the county. And even if they pay the fee, the Board of Adjustment could still decide to reject the request.

"If I can't build, I'm going to raise holy hell," Terry Nelson said. "I'm going to sue some people."
Nelson wouldn't be the first to consider taking the issue to court.

Darren Kittleson, who for the last year has squared off against the Arboretum Neighborhood Association over the two proposed houses near Lake Wingra, is asking the Board of Adjustment tonight for variances from the zoning law as it is now interpreted.

If the panel rejects the variance requests, Kittleson would have a month to file a lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court to overturn the board's November decision. It's an option he's seriously considering, especially because he expects the variance to be denied.

"I'm not optimistic," Kittleson said.When the Board of Adjustment made its decision in November, zoning officials were unsure about the ramifications, mostly because the panel did not officially state its reasons for voting the way it did.

Last week, after meeting with an attorney, the panel filed its reasons. They included the fact that the "grandfather clause" only exempts properties for area and "frontage," but not lot width or density. Also, "because the ordinance is ambiguous," it must be interpreted within the context of the intentions of shoreland zoning regulations, the panel ruled.

Other reasons relate to the environmental impact of denser housing, something Ronald Kalil, one of the Arboretum Neighborhood Association leaders, has argued all along. The extra houses will decrease absorption of water into the ground and, as a result, more pollutants will run into the environmentally sensitive areas nearby, Kalil said.

Kalil said he expects to attend tonight's Board of Adjustment meeting to register his opposition to the variance. He was glad the panel was able to clear up a long-standing misinterpretation of the zoning law. "It seems that the fine print in the grandfathering clause has never been carefully studied," Kalil said.

Critics of the panel's decision, such as Phil Salkin, government affairs director for the Wisconsin Realtors Association, aren't so sure the decision will stand up in court. "This is basically three people doing what the legislative branch refused to do," Salkin said. "That's, in a sense, what is so galling about this."


madison.com is operated by Capital Newspapers, publishers of the Wisconsin State Journal, The Capital Times, Agri-View and Apartment Showcase. All contents Copyright ©2007, Capital Newspapers. All rights reserved.