Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting & Public Hearing

1 HYBRID ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES 2 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2025 3 LARGE MEETING ROOM – SISTER BAY-LIBERTY GROVE FIRE STATION 4 2258 Mill Road, Sister Bay, WI 5 & VIA “ZOOM” VIDEO CONFERENCING SOFWARE 6 (APPROVED) 7 8 Agenda Item 1. Call Meeting To Order: The February 19, 2025 hybrid meeting of the Sister Bay 9 Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairperson Tom Sadler at 6:15 P.M. 10 11 Agenda Item 2. Roll Call: Chairperson Sadler and Board members Pat Wisner, Deb Duren, Hristo 12 Blagoev, and Liz Hecht. Alternate Board Member Terry Kelly was also present. 13 14 Staff Members: Administrative Assistant Janal Suppanz, and Village Attorney Randy Nesbitt. 15 16 Excused: Village Administrator/Zoning Administrator Julie Schmelzer 17 18 Others: The Appellants, Douglas and Ellen Roberts and their Attorney Dan Gawronski, Mark 19 Waeghe, Mike Mercurio, Paula Anschutz, Chris Hecht, John Stollenwerk, and one unidentified 20 individual. 21 22 Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of the Agenda: 23 Motion by Sadler, second by Wisner that the Agenda for the February 19, 2025 meeting of the 24 Village of Sister Bay Zoning Board of Appeals be approved as presented. Motion carried – All ayes. 25 26 Agenda Item No. 4. Approval of minutes for the December 19, 2024 meeting of the Zoning 27 Board of Appeals and the related document that is entitled, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 28 & Formal Determination That “No Decision” Could Be Reached: 29 Motion by Hecht, second by Kelly that the minutes for the December 19, 2024 virtual meeting of 30 the Zoning Board of Appeals as well as the related document that is entitled, Findings of Fact, 31 Conclusions of Law & Formal Determination That “No Decision” Could Be Reached be approved as 32 presented. Motion carried – All ayes. 33 34 Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing on the Petition For Grant of Variance for the property located 35 at 10631 Little Sister Road that was filed by Attorney Daniel Gawronski on behalf of Douglas B. 36 Roberts and Ellen B. Roberts: 37 Sadler, who is the Chair of the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals, introduced himself as well as the 38 other Zoning Board of Appeals members and the Village Attorney, Randy Nesbitt, and briefly 39 explained the procedures that would be adhered to during this meeting. He also noted that the 40 members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, who are bound by the provisions of the Wisconsin 41 Statutes, are appointed by the Village Board, and they have been charged with hearing appeals 42 of decisions that are made by the Village Administrator/Zoning Administrator and/or the Village’s 43 Plan Commission as well as requests for variances. 44 45 On January 16, 2025 Attorney Dan Gawronski of the Michael, Best & Friedrich Law Firm filed a 46 request for a variance from Section 66.0311(4) of the Municipal Code for the Village of Sister Bay, 47 which limits the height of a principal building to 35’. (That section of the Code is commonly  2/19/2025 Village of Sister Bay Zoning Board of Appeals Mtg. Minutes – Douglas and Ellen Roberts Variance Request 1 referred to as “the Zoning Code”.) In their application/petition for a variance Mr. and Mrs. Roberts 2 allege that the literal enforcement of the definition of the term “Building Height” as set forth in 3 Section 66.2001 of the Zoning Code, combined with the unique sloped incline of their lot, which 4 has been assigned an address of 10631 Little Sister Road, presents a practical difficulty and 5 unnecessary hardship to their ability to construct a new home with an overall maximum height of 6 37’11” which will preserve their enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other 7 residents in the R-1 Zoning District. All the required documentation was filed in a timely fashion 8 and was included in the digital packets for this meeting. 9 10 At 6:28 P.M. Sadler called the Public Hearing on Mr. and Mrs. Roberts’ request for a variance to 11 order, and requested that Suppanz read the related Public Hearing Notice that was published and 12 posted aloud. Suppanz complied with that request, and Sadler then explained that since Julie 13 Schmelzer, the Village Administrator/Zoning Administrator, had another obligation and would not 14 be able to attend this meeting he would be reading the Staff Report that she had prepared aloud. 15 (A complete and accurate copy of that document is hereby attached and incorporated by 16 reference, and Sadler requested that it be made part of the official record.) 17 18 Attorney Gawronski was subsequently sworn in by Attorney Nesbitt, and he indicated that he 19 would be joined at this hearing by Mr. and Mrs. Roberts as well as Mark Waeghe, who is the 20 builder who has been working on the plans for the Roberts’ new home. He also read a prepared 21 statement aloud, and displayed a related Power Point presentation, and a copy of that Power Point 22 presentation, that was included in the digital meeting packets, is likewise attached and 23 incorporated by reference. It, too, will be made part of the official record. Attorney Gawronski 24 indicated that despite the comments that were made by Schmelzer in the previously mentioned 25 report, he believes Mr. and Mrs. Roberts’ request for an area variance should be granted. He also 26 stated that he believes Schmelzer’s Staff Report contains a number of false and misleading 27 statements as well as incorrect interpretations of State law, and stressed that he finds the 28 “discriminatory comments that were made by Ms. Schmelzer regarding Mr. Roberts’ disability to 29 be disgusting”. Attorney Gawronski pointed out that only one portion of Mr. and Mrs. Roberts’ 30 home is over the Village’s maximum height requirements, and also noted that those height 31 requirements have only been exceeded by 2’11”. Mr. and Mrs. Roberts are respectfully requesting 32 that an “area variance” be granted for their proposed new home because they believe the design 33 of that home is essential for the safe, functional and accessible use of it on their property and don’t 34 want to disrupt the “natural God-given topography”. Attorney Gawronski acknowledged that 35 there are alternative design options available for Mr. and Mrs. Roberts’ home, such as lowering 36 the roofline or backfilling the exposed foundation, but pointed out that lowering the roofline below 37 35’ would result in a substandard building design as there would have to be a significant reduction 38 to the pitch of the roof. Further, if backfilling were to be done it could lead to, among other things, 39 drainage and erosion control issues as well as disjointed elevations with neighboring properties. 40 The change in topography could also create safety issues for those wishing to navigate the rear 41 terrain on the property, especially young children, the elderly and those with disabilities. In 42 conclusion Attorney Gawronski requested that during their deliberations on this matter the Board 43 members pay particular attention to the factors that are clearly delineated on the slide that has 44 been labeled “Conclusions of Law”. He also stressed that Mr. and Mrs. Roberts are requesting an 45 “area variance” because the unique topography of their lot creates a hardship and makes 46 compliance with the Code practically difficult and unnecessarily burdensome. 47 -2-  2/19/2025 Village of Sister Bay Zoning Board of Appeals Mtg. Minutes – Douglas and Ellen Roberts Variance Request 1 Ellen Roberts was sworn in by Attorney Nesbitt, and she indicated that she feels I’ts important to 2 explain how she and her husband “got to this point”. She then elaborated on that comment, and 3 stated that she and her husband bought the property at 10631 Little Sister Road in October of 4 2020. That purchase was honestly “a dream come true” for them. Originally they worked with the 5 employees from Great Northern Construction on designing their new home, but some very 6 unfortunate family issues arose, and they had no option but to delay the start of construction. 7 They eventually determined that the folks from Great Northern “were not a good fit” for them, so 8 after speaking with several different builders they decided to hire Mark Waeghe. Every single 9 builder that they spoke with informed them that the 14’ to 15’ steep slope on the back of their 10 property would require construction of a home with an exposed foundation and a “walk-out”, so 11 those features were added to their building plans. In conclusion Ms. Roberts stated that she and 12 her husband “did their homework”, and never expected to be subjected to all the turmoil they’ve 13 had to deal with on the Village level. They are merely asking for some “understanding” and a fair 14 and reasonable solution to the previously mentioned issues associated with their property, and 15 hope that the Board members will find that “hardship” does exist because of the nature of the 16 “God given topography” of that property. They have no intention of ever renting their new home 17 out on a transient basis, as they intend to move up here as soon as possible, and fully intend for 18 their new home to be a place for their family members to gather for years to come. 19 20 Douglas Roberts was sworn in by Attorney Nesbitt and he reiterated that he and his wife are 21 requesting a variance because there are unique topographical features associated with their lot. 22 He did lose his leg as the result of a car accident that nearly ended his life, and, quite honestly, 23 finds the comments that were made by Schmelzer in her Staff Report concerning his disability to 24 be very offensive. In conclusion Mr. Roberts stated that he believes it’s “ridiculous” that this matter 25 has “gotten to this point”. He also stated that he believes the concept of “height averaging”, which 26 is utilized in several other municipalities throughout the State of Wisconsin, should be utilized in 27 the Village. 28 29 Mark Waeghe was sworn in by Attorney Nesbitt, and he explained that he is the builder who was 30 retained by Mr. and Mrs. Roberts. He went on and indicated that he has been working in Door 31 County for the better part of two decades, and is aware that it’s not uncommon at all for the height 32 of homes throughout the County to be “averaged”. He believes the proposed pitch of the roof of 33 Mr. and Mrs. Roberts’ new home is necessary because there will actually be five “valleys” on it. If 34 the pitch of the roof were to be reduced there would definitely be more potential for debris to 35 accumulate in the “valleys”, and if that occurred, from a property maintenance standpoint, it 36 would definitely be necessary for someone to actually climb on the roof to remove it, which 37 obviously is a safety concern. 38 39 Sadler asked if Attorney Gawronski wished to call any further witnesses, and when he responded 40 that he did not, Sadler noted that copies of letters which were sent by Michael and Sarah Mercurio, 41 David and Randall Johnson, T.A. and R.M. Downey, John and JoEllen Stollenwerk, Lance and 42 Bridget Crane, Paul and Cathy Luber, Nicholas and Katherine Gerrits, and Dave and Carole 43 Frykman were all included in the digital meeting packets. He then proceeded to read those letters 44 aloud. (In their letters all of the previously mentioned individuals indicate that they own property 45 on Little Sister Road and support the Roberts and their variance request. They also indicate that 46 they not only believe Mr. and Mrs. Roberts’ home is “consistent” with the existing neighboring 47 homes, but also believe it will be “a wonderful addition to their neighborhood”. Mr. and Mrs. -3-  2/19/2025 Village of Sister Bay Zoning Board of Appeals Mtg. Minutes – Douglas and Ellen Roberts Variance Request 1 Frykman also sent an e-mail, and in that document they indicate that their home, like Mr. and Mrs. 2 Roberts’ proposed home, is situated on a slope, thus necessitating the need for a walk-out lower 3 floor, but a single level of it is only visible from the road. In conclusion Mr. and Mrs. Frykman 4 indicate that they believe permission should be granted for Mr. and Mrs. Roberts to construct their 5 new home as they believe that home will “fit nicely on Little Sister Road”. 6 7 Sadler then asked if anyone in the audience would like to comment in favor of granting Mr. and 8 Mrs. Roberts’ request for a variance. 9 10 Paula Anschutz was sworn in by Attorney Nesbitt, and she indicated that she met Mr. and Mrs. 11 Roberts last summer. At that time Mr. and Mrs. Roberts stated that they were aware of her efforts 12 to “recycle” or “convert” existing older homes and cottages into “affordable workforce housing” 13 and expressed interest in donating the cottage that was on their property to her, but unfortunately 14 that donation never came to fruition. (Ms. Anschutz stated that it’s her understanding that 15 Schmelzer informed Mr. and Mrs. Roberts that she could not issue a permit for the cottage to be 16 moved because Little Sister Road was not wide enough. To be perfectly honest, she was quite 17 confused by that comment because she personally had made arrangements to have other cottages 18 that were either on or adjacent to Little Sister Road moved, and didn’t encounter any road width 19 issues.) Mr. and Mrs. Roberts informed her that they fully intend to retain as many trees as possible 20 on their lot, and she firmly believes the related maintenance and safety issues are definitely 21 another factor that must be taken into consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals members. In 22 conclusion Ms. Anschutz implored the Board members to consider all the testimony that was 23 presented at this hearing, and also indicated that she firmly believes Mr. and Mrs. Roberts’ request 24 is reasonable and satisfies all of the previously mentioned criteria. She also stated that she believes 25 the “issues” that Mr. and Mrs. Roberts and Mr. Waeghe have had to deal with on the Village level 26 are not only “burdensome” but are also quite “embarrassing”. 27 28 Sadler asked if anyone else would like to testify in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Roberts’ request, and Chris 29 Hecht was sworn in by Attorney Nesbitt. He indicated that he sat on the Plan Commission for many 30 years, and it is his understanding that previous Administrators did utilize the theory of “height 31 averaging”, especially on sloped lots. He is the Chief of the Sister Bay-Liberty Grove Fire 32 Department, and quite frankly does not believe there is anything wrong with what Mr. and Mr. 33 Roberts are requesting, as if fill were to be added and a retaining wall created on the lot at 10631 34 Little Sister Road it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for fire trucks to gain access to the 35 property should the need arise. In conclusion Hecht stated that to be perfectly honest, if the 36 benchmark that was described during the course of this meeting had been strictly adhered to in 37 the past, he does not believe it would have been possible for many of the existing homes in the 38 community, including his own home, which he considers to be a very simple, two story single family 39 residence with a walk-out basement, to ever satisfy the Village’s height requirements. He then 40 implored the Zoning Board of Appeals members to grant Mr. and Mrs. Roberts’ request for a 41 variance. 42 43 John Stollenwerk was sworn in by Attorney Nesbitt, and he confirmed that he does own a home 44 on Little Sister Road. He and a number of his neighbors are definitely in favor of granting the 45 variance, and believe Mr. and Mrs. Roberts’ new home will not only be a great enhancement to 46 their neighborhood, but the Village as a whole. 47 -4-  2/19/2025 Village of Sister Bay Zoning Board of Appeals Mtg. Minutes – Douglas and Ellen Roberts Variance Request 1 Sadler asked if anyone else would like to comment in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Roberts request, and 2 when no one responded he asked if anyone who was opposed to the request would like to speak. 3 Again no one responded, and, therefore, he noted that Attorney Gawronski would be granted one 4 final opportunity to make very brief closing statements. 5 6 Attorney Gawronski thanked the Zoning Board of Appeals members for taking the time to attend 7 this hearing, and stressed that he firmly believes Mr. and Mrs. Roberts have proven that all the 8 requirements for the granting of a variance have been satisfied. He also stated that he believes 9 the proposed home is consistent with the “intent” of all the Village’s zoning regulations, and does 10 not believe there will be any health, safety or aesthetic concerns if the proposed plans are 11 approved as presented. Further, property owners have the right to build within prescribed 12 setbacks, and quite frankly he firmly believes that for the Village to suggest otherwise is 13 “inappropriate”. Attorney Gawronski stated that he believes evidence has been presented which 14 clearly proves that “hardship” exists because compliance with the Zoning Code would be 15 “burdensome”, and he also indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Roberts are asserting that because of its 16 “God given topography” the property at 10631 Little Sister Road is quite “unique”. They also are 17 alleging that the granting of the previously mentioned variance is necessary to preserve property 18 rights. In conclusion Attorney Gawronski indicated that as can be evidenced by the fact that no 19 one spoke in opposition to Mr. and Mrs. Roberts’ request there is no detriment to the granting of 20 the variance, and he and they hope the Board members concur. 21 22 Sadler asked if any of the Board members had any questions for Mr. and Mrs. Roberts or Attorney 23 Gawronski, and none of them responded. Kelly did, however, state that he believes Hecht’s 24 comments were “key”; in that what is being proposed would actually enhance safety from the Fire 25 Department’s perspective. 26 27 At 8:05 P.M. Sadler declared that the Public Hearing was officially closed. 28 29 Agenda Item No. 6: Discussion regarding the Petition for Grant of Variance for the property 30 located at 10631 Little Sister Road that was filed by Attorney Daniel Gawronski on behalf of 31 Douglas B. Roberts and Ellen B. Roberts; Consider a motion for action if appropriate: 32 Discussion took place regarding Mr. and Mrs. Roberts request for a variance, and during that time 33 Wisner pointed out that unfortunately, because of actions that were taken by previous Village 34 Administrators Schmelzer basically has found herself in a “no win” situation. She also stated that 35 she is certainly not opposed to the granting of the variance that has been requested by Mr. and 36 Mrs. Roberts, but is concerned “that precedence will be set”. 37 38 Hecht and Duren as well as Blagoev and Sadler indicated that they also would not be opposed to 39 the granting of the variance, but Duren and Hecht did stress that in light of the information that 40 was presented at this meeting they believe related Zoning Code amendments are warranted. 41 42 The Board members referred to a template for a document that was entitled “Findings of Fact, 43 Conclusions of Law & Decision” that had been presented to them by Attorney Nesbitt, and they 44 subsequently found that the requested variance satisfies all of the following tests: 45 46 47 -5-  2/19/2025 Village of Sister Bay Zoning Board of Appeals Mtg. Minutes – Douglas and Ellen Roberts Variance Request 1 Preservation of intent, 2 Exceptional circumstances, 3 Hardship, 4 Preservation of property rights, and, 5 Absence of detriment. 6 7 They also agreed upon the verbiage that the variable portions of the previously mentioned 8 document should contain, and Suppanz took note of all the recommended revisions. 9 10 Motion by Hecht, second by Duren that the variance from Section 66.0311(4) of the Municipal 11 Code for the Village of Sister Bay, which limits the height of a principal building to a maximum 12 height of 35’ that was requested by Attorney Daniel Gawronski of Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP on 13 behalf of Douglas B. Roberts and Ellen B. Roberts, and will allow Mr. and Mrs. Roberts to build a 14 home with an overall maximum height of 37’11” at 10631 Little Sister Road, which property is 15 located in the R-1 Zoning District, be and hereby is granted. 16 17 A roll call vote was taken on that motion, and the Board members voted in the following fashion: 18 19 Sadler – Aye; Blagoev – Aye; Hecht – Aye; Duren – Aye; Wisner – Aye. 20 21 Motion carried. 22 23 Attorney Gawronski thanked the Zoning Board of Appeals members for their consideration, and 24 indicated that since the previously mentioned variance was granted he is assuming that a Zoning 25 Permit will be issued to Mr. and Mrs. Roberts for their new home. Nesbitt indicated that he will 26 inform Schmelzer of the outcome of this hearing “first thing in the morning” and will ask her to 27 see that a Zoning Permit is issued to Mr. and Mrs. Roberts in as timely a fashion as possible. 28 29 Adjournment: 30 At 8:16 P.M. a motion was made by Wisner, seconded by Duren that the February 19, 2025 31 meeting of the Village of Sister Bay Zoning Board of Appeals be adjourned. Motion carried – All 32 ayes. 33 34 Respectfully submitted, 35 36 Janal Suppanz, 37 Administrative Assistant 38 A:\1. 2025 Agendas\Zoning Board of Appeals\ROBERTS Variance Meeting 021925\021925 ZBA Meeting Minutes - Approved Version.docx Created by Janal Suppanz on 02/19/2025; Last Printed: 7/29/2025 9:15 AM -6-