[2:40] Tonight's

[2:53] Village Planning Commission. I ask that you please rise for a pledge of

[2:57] allegiance and a moment of silence. I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[3:04] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation

[3:10] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[3:21] » Thank you everyone. Please be seated. Jessica, can you get a minute? Could you

[3:27] give us roll call, please?

[3:31] All right. Commissioner Libert here.

[3:36] » Commissioner Gowski >> here.

[3:38] » Commissioner Belt >> here.

[3:41] » Trusty Roodie >> here.

[3:43] » Commissioner Jaliss >> here.

[3:46] » And President Ken >> here.

[3:50] Okay. Item two are public hearings. First one is conditional use grant

[3:56] request of applicant Christian Brothers Automotive develop an automotive service

[4:00] use in our automobile service use and only permissible through the issuance of

[4:04] a conditional use grant section excuse me 40.25010.

[4:11] This request is located immediately west of Menard and north of Jill's car wash

[4:15] PWV0901984006.

[4:19] The proposed development would be part of this 38.72 acre B1 community business

[4:26] district with a planned unit development overlay and a C2 consery district split

[4:32] zoned. The property is owned by Meadow Creek Limited Partnership and applicant

[4:37] is William Bastic, DVA Christian Brothers Automotive.

[4:41] I hear I open up the public hearing. Is there anybody that would like to speak

[4:45] on this particular item?

[4:50] Nobody. Okay, we're going to close that one. Next one is a conditional use grant

[4:55] request by the village of Pewwaukee to establish an expanded lift station

[4:59] within railroad right away located north of 512 Copy Drive Public

[5:03] [clears throat and cough] and or private utility use is only

[5:06] permissible through the issuance of a conditional use grant section 40.2042.

[5:12] The railroad rightway is operated by CPKC and is owned R5 residential

[5:19] district detach district, pardon me. I hereby open up this public hearing.

[5:25] Anybody on this one?

[5:29] Okay, I'm going to close that one. Item C, conditional use grant request

[5:36] of applicant James Kowski to construct a 6' tall fence. The structure is proposed

[5:41] at 0 feet from the rear lot line. A reduction from the required 5ft offset

[5:46] for fencing over 4 1/2 ft tall is permissible only through the issuance of

[5:50] a conditional use grant on a legal non-conforming lot section 40.2104A

[5:57] and this is 0.21 21 acre parcel located 128 park at PWV0896017

[6:07] is zoned R5 residential detached district property owner applicant is Jim

[6:12] Scabowski. I will ask for anybody here that would like to talk about this. Yes

[6:17] sir.

[6:22] » Hello board. Uh on behalf of myself and my fiance

[6:28] [laughter] Jim Grabowski, 128 Park Avenue. My

[6:33] apologies. Uh on behalf of myself and my fiance, thank you for taking up this

[6:37] agenda item and thank you for the planner for the consideration in it. Uh

[6:41] since I don't know if during the actual agenda item if applicants are able to

[6:46] speak. Uh I will say there are two elements of this that I'd like

[6:50] consideration for amendments. One being it has me down as a six-foot fence. Um

[6:55] whereas my uh neighbor who's also on the agenda later on is requesting an 8 foot.

[7:00] I would like it to be uh same height all the way across since we're using same

[7:05] materials and so that it matches uh also for added privacy um for reasons I

[7:11] stated to the planner both from the commercial properties in the alley as

[7:15] well as from my neighbor who has placed security cameras and floating quotes

[7:21] that point into our yard and refuses to remove them. So, uh, I request the the

[7:26] change in height from six to eight. As well as as the planner noted in the the

[7:31] packet, there is a, um, illegal, um, abnormality in the description of our

[7:37] properties that resulted in a gap between the two parcels. Um and as we

[7:43] found out that was from I think during the original platting of the uh the

[7:47] neighborhood of which sides what corners they started their their platting from

[7:53] and they just never met. Um we have been maintaining that since I I had purchased

[7:59] the house 11 years ago I believe. Um and I've been maintaining that as well as my

[8:05] neighbor's been maintaining that since he purchased that house. And I would

[8:09] request that we are u able to fence that over that gap so that we do have a full

[8:16] uniform security privacy fence along that back property line. Um so those

[8:21] were the two items that I wanted to bring to your attention. But I am here

[8:25] in the audience if you guys have any questions during the agenda item. So

[8:29] thank you. >> Thank you sir. Any other comments? Yes

[8:33] sir. Yeah.

[8:38] Lance Miller. I'm here as council for uh Big Fish Capital, which owns 118 Lake

[8:44] Street, the adjacent properties. Um I don't know procedure proper if I speak

[8:50] now or if we take that up during the discussion.

[8:55] » The public hearing is for public comments. If the board desires in the

[9:01] past, they have asked applicants to bring forward information. But if you

[9:05] have comments on behalf of your clients, now would be the

[9:08] » Okay. Sure. Thank you. Uh on behalf of the big big fish capital, then we'd um

[9:14] I just like to um point out the opposition to really both items, the I

[9:20] think item C and D on the agenda. Um there's really four points I think that

[9:25] we'd like to cover and that the issue is whether or not there's sufficient

[9:28] evidence that this commission has to support the findings for exceptional

[9:33] relief from the five foot setback requirement despite the acknowledged

[9:38] impacts on the adjoining property, the neighbor aesthetics and the future

[9:42] precedent. And so I just want to briefly cover each one of those topics um and go

[9:47] through that. Uh, first I think that the staff report did a pretty good job

[9:51] highlighting this point, but this is does seem to be a case of u first

[9:55] impression of first time an issue like this is before

[9:58] the plan commission and I think the background uh on this as I understand

[10:03] there's a a 5- foot setback uh that's applicable. Uh historically when there's

[10:08] been a request to change or shorten that setback uh that's been addressed through

[10:12] a neighborhood consent and so um there's a request here to eliminate the setback

[10:18] and there is not a neighbor consent. Instead we're going to sort of bypass

[10:23] that rule and ask for a a special to use a special mechanism uh for approval. Um

[10:32] and uh the ordinance is specifically uh uh reference setting precedent for

[10:37] future development in the village. And I think that that's something that this

[10:40] plan commission has to has to cons consider specifically

[10:45] um you know if in the future uh folks want to build an 8oot privacy wall um

[10:50] right along the property. I think the commission has to think about

[10:54] identifying a rule that can articulate uh to distinguish future requests uh for

[10:59] orderly development in the future. That's sort of point one on the

[11:03] precedent. Point two is really aesthetics. The ordinances say that uh

[11:07] the requested change has to be in um in harmony with the areas in which it's

[11:12] located and the commission has to consider area aesthetics in the

[11:16] immediate neighborhood. I think here there's been some discussion uh and in

[11:20] one instance I think we're replacing a zero foot fence with a I think as

[11:24] amended an 8ft fence and then in the other request a 3 and 1/2t fence with an

[11:30] eight 8ft fence um with in both instances really the

[11:34] stated goal of interrupting or disrupting the visual relationship

[11:38] between those two properties. And so um whether or not that 8ft tall wall along,

[11:44] you know, the the property line that's intended just to to shield, um uh the

[11:49] visual image between the properties. Um whether or not that is harmonious with

[11:55] the area, you know, I'd suggest that the that that the answer is no. Um and that

[12:00] the commission should deny it on that ground. Uh third and related, the fence

[12:04] ordinance. I don't think this was touched on by the report, but uh 40.4

[12:09] 422C1. The fence ordinance generally prohibits structures that create a

[12:14] adverse effect on property value or the reasonable enjoyment of the surrounding

[12:18] property. I think again for the reasons that I've stated, an 8-ft wall

[12:22] intentionally designed to alter that visual relationship

[12:26] uh would be prohibited under that that ordinance. And then really point number

[12:30] four and then we'll move on is the uh property value or economic impact. Uh my

[12:35] client 118 is a rental property. It's got a lake view. It's marketed and

[12:39] advertised and and leased based upon that lake view.

[12:43] I don't know the exact timing, but my understanding is my client built a patio

[12:47] uh out back so that the residents can take advantage of that lake lake view.

[12:51] Um and there's just no dispute that if we add this wall uh that lake view is

[12:56] going to be eliminated. And so when you look at the appearance,

[12:59] openness, sightliness of the adjoining property, [clears throat] granting the

[13:03] request is going to impair that value of the adjoining property. And so that

[13:06] should be taken into consideration. So those are really the the four areas I

[13:11] wanted to cover. Um you know, on behalf of my client, I respectfully request

[13:15] that the both requests be denied. If they're not denied tonight, I think a

[13:19] continuous um continuence to complete the record and to consider less

[13:23] intrusive options would be the the way to go. I'll be in the audience. Thank

[13:28] you. >> Thank you.

[13:30] » Is there any other comment at this time? If not, okay, I'm going to close that

[13:37] one. Next item is conditional use grant request of applicant Ken Ward to

[13:44] construct an 8 foot tall fence. The structure is proposed at 0 feet from the

[13:48] rear lot line, a reduction from the required 5T offset for fencing over 4

[13:54] and 1/2 ft tall is permissible only through the issuance of a conditional

[13:58] use grant on an legal non-conforming lot section 40.2104A.

[14:05] This 0.1 acre parcel located at 124 Park PWV0896018

[14:14] is zoned R5 residential detach district. Property owner applicant is Ken Ward. I

[14:20] open up the public hearing. Is there any comments or anything on this particular

[14:25] item? Yes, sir.

[14:30] [snorts] >> Good evening. and I'm Ken Ward, 124 Park

[14:33] Avenue, Wisconsin licensed uh professional engineer E26647.

[14:38] Um [snorts] for the same reasons as uh stated by uh

[14:43] Jim, uh we would like to see the 8oot fence. Um also would like if we could

[14:48] put it across what is called the gap realistically is not a gap based under

[14:52] actual survey standards. It was platted that way uh for whatever reason in the

[14:57] original plat. It does not state that it was for public use. does not state that

[15:01] it's a walkway. It was just a 6 foot wide area because that area has been uh

[15:06] maintained by both Jim and myself. Uh Jim for 11 years, myself for the pa past

[15:11] nine. Um you know, at some point we could do a certified survey map and

[15:15] create that, but the reality is um we are utilizing that parcel at this time.

[15:20] Uh with respect to the comments that were made by uh Mr. Miller. Um I don't

[15:25] know that this necessarily has an exceptional impact uh on the parcel next

[15:29] to us or not. If you take a look at the drawings immediately to the northeast of

[15:34] me, um I have um a commercial use and I did get a sign off from that person last

[15:41] year before building that 6ft fence. Um however, we still have light glare from

[15:46] the bar and the area across the alley. So that's why we're asking for the 8ft

[15:50] fence there on our east lot line which is adjacent to 118 lake which is the

[15:56] parcel uh that Mr. Miller is representing. One of the items that we

[16:01] have there is two years ago a garage was built on that parcel. When that garage

[16:06] was built that parcel was raised 2 feet. There is approximately a 10-ft wall on

[16:12] the side of the garage. So it was made for commercial uses. As far as I'm aware

[16:16] right now, it is not part of the rental of that parcel for the home and we

[16:21] believe that is being used for businesses as I have talked to the

[16:24] people that are parking trailers immediately adjacent to our lot line and

[16:28] that it is being used for commercial purposes for businesses that Big Fish

[16:33] may own or maybe he's renting the space someone else. I'm actually not positive

[16:37] on that. So, I don't know if there's an impact there with the respect to the

[16:41] aesthetics of the fence. The reality is the siding that's on the um garage is a

[16:47] vertical siding. The the fencing that we have picked is also vertical in nature.

[16:52] So we are very compatible with the look of what that garage would be. Even with

[16:57] that at an 8ft fence from our rear yards, we will still see portions of his

[17:03] building and we will just barely be blocking the trailer that's currently

[17:06] parked out there. So we will even at 8 ft, we will still have that portion

[17:11] right there. Additionally, the patio that was pointed out by Mr. Miller is up

[17:16] against the house. If you look at Mr. Grabowsk's application, he does not have

[17:21] the fence necessarily going all the way across his lot line. Any view that is

[17:26] established from that patio will be able to be seen through the parking lot of

[17:30] the commercial area to Park Avenue to this villages commercial parking lot

[17:35] that's across the street and then is blocked any view of the lake due to the

[17:39] old Smoky's bait shop that's there. So realistically, I don't believe that

[17:43] there's any denial of uh aesthetic use because you can't see the lake from that

[17:49] portion or if you could, it's very small and there will be no fence within that

[17:54] area. Um I I think that the statement that our fence is not harmonious with

[18:00] the area. If you take a look at to the um uh south of Jim's parcel, it's

[18:06] commercial. To the northeast of mine, it's commercial. behind us is now have

[18:12] become, if you will, a rental property and is commercial. So, the fact of

[18:17] having a fence there should really doesn't take away from what might be the

[18:21] ability of someone to live in that house or as a renter to be in there. Um, are

[18:26] there any questions that the board may have for me?

[18:32] » Thank you. >> Thank you, sir.

[18:36] » Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment?

[18:39] Just I'm not going to repeat myself. Just for the record to be clear that

[18:42] » please restate your name and address for the record. Just

[18:45] » Lance Miller appearing on behalf of Big Fish uh Capital, the owner of 118 uh

[18:51] Lake Drive. Again, not to repeat myself. I incorporate the same comments if you

[18:55] will. >> Thank you.

[18:56] » Okay. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else?

[19:01] Okay. Then we close that public hearing. >> Item E. Conditional

[19:08] use grant and plan of operation request of Lake Country Barge to locate a boat

[19:14] lift and pierce sales service repair and boat storage use and boat related use is

[19:20] only permissible through the issuance of a conditional use grant section 40.3169.

[19:27] This request is located at 400 Sussex Street PWV0897993.

[19:33] The proposed development on a 4.23 23 32 acre B5 light industrial district

[19:41] zone property. The property is owned by Capital Acquisition LLC and the

[19:47] applicant is Lake Country Barge. I will open up the public hearing on this

[19:52] particular item. Is there anybody here that would like to speak on this?

[20:00] » John Sappro. I'm across the street to the west. technically no address, so

[20:06] I'll call it 401. Um, I support them going in there. My concern is that with

[20:12] the tree planting that's described in the right in writing, not in a print,

[20:17] I'm worried that they're going to raise the water table up further yet, which

[20:21] everybody coming down the street has destroyed our property because the water

[20:25] table just keeps coming up. We can't even get a mower out there anymore.

[20:30] » So, that's my only concern. So, how do we find out where the trees are going to

[20:35] go or are they going to be raising the >> raising raising the the terrain?

[20:44] » That should be discussed during the regular meeting. And if you have any

[20:48] questions again, we will ask the board if you're allowed to ask.

[20:51] » Okay. Okay. Thank you all. >> Thank you, sir. Are there any other

[20:56] comments?

[20:59] » Hello. Uh my name is Matthew Quest, 153 Park Avenue. Um I am the owner of the

[21:05] property, Aaron Stapleton of Lake Country Barge. Uh I will be the

[21:09] occupant. Um wanted to let you know I'm here to answer questions. I believe I

[21:14] provided a packet that shows um general, you know, in terms of improvements to

[21:20] the property. There's not much in really anything in new structures. What we're

[21:24] looking at is, you know, updating a lot of issues with the property, new paint,

[21:30] new roofs, cleaning it up, new landscaping. To answer your question,

[21:35] when we get to the point, the the trees were really something that were from

[21:40] past experience, you guys like trees, so I said we could do it. Um, so those are

[21:45] all open staff level. No intent to raise. It doesn't help us to raise the

[21:50] water level there either. So, um, in terms of the current occupancy with

[21:56] Center Point and the new occupancy, um, it will be le a lot less traffic.

[22:04] There still will be a level of outdoor storage there, but um, Center Point,

[22:11] I've bought boats there, but they've used a lot of that property and some of

[22:15] your property. Uh, we won't be using any of that. Everything will be behind the

[22:19] fences. Um, so we're open to suggestions on how you guys want that improved, but

[22:26] we will be, you know, doing new paint, some landscaping that will just the

[22:32] aesthetic portion of it, try to improve the screening, new roofs, I think a few

[22:37] other things. So, we are available for questions as you guys discuss it and

[22:41] look forward to working with you. >> Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else

[22:45] that would like to make a comment as it relates to this particular item?

[22:51] Okay, I will close that one. The next item on the agenda is citizen

[22:56] comments. This is an opportunity for citizens to share their questions with

[23:01] commission members on any topic they choose. However, due to Wisconsin open

[23:05] meeting laws, the commission is not able to answer questions or respond to your

[23:09] comments. All comments should be directed to the commission and comments

[23:14] are limited to three minutes per speaker. Speakers are asked to please

[23:18] use the podium and state their name and address for the record. Is there anybody

[23:22] here that would like to make a comment as to anything?

[23:32] Ken Ward, 124 Park Avenue. Um just something I left out before, but you

[23:37] gave me open the door here. Um Oh boy. >> Yes. [laughter]

[23:41] So with respect to the 6 foot wide area, both Jim and I would agree that um it

[23:48] could be an issue if you approved it uh on that gap. However, we would be more

[23:54] than willing to have written into the conditional use grant because um uh the

[23:58] way that conditional uses work that we if we were allowed to install the fence,

[24:04] if at some point in the future it was determined that the 6 foot wide area was

[24:09] ownership of a third party, we would then remove the fence and that could

[24:13] become part of that conditional use. >> Okay.

[24:16] » Thank you. >> Thank you, sir.

[24:19] There's any other comments or questions? Okay, then we're going to move on to old

[24:26] business, which we have none. Item five is new business. Review

[24:32] discussion and possible action on conditional use grant request of

[24:35] applicant Christian Brothers Automotive. >> What's that?

[24:39] » The minutes. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that one.

[24:45] » I have the that was up here. I couldn't see it.

[24:49] » Planning Commission approval of the planning commission meeting July 9th,

[24:53] 2026. Are there any questions, comments

[24:58] as the way they are presented this evening?

[25:02] » Libert I'd make a motion to approve the plan commission meeting minutes of July

[25:06] 9th, 2026. >> Second.

[25:10] » Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I.

[25:16] I I opposed. Minutes are hereby adopted. Now we'll go

[25:21] to old business which we have none and new business. Review and discussion and

[25:26] possible action on conditional use grant request of applicant Christian Brothers

[25:31] Automotive to develop an automotive service use and automotive service use

[25:36] is only permissible through the issuance of a conditional use grant section

[25:40] 40.250-10. The request is located immediately west

[25:44] of Bernard and north of Julie Car Wash PWV0901984006.

[25:51] The proposed development would be part of this 38.72 acre B1 community business

[25:57] district with a planned unit development overlay and a C2 consery district split

[26:03] zone. The property is owned by Metal Creek Limited Partnership and applicant

[26:08] is William Bostic, DBA Christian Brothers Automotive. Um, I hope

[26:13] everyone's had a chance to go over this. Are there any questions, comments, or

[26:19] corrections as to the way this is presented evening this evening? Um,

[26:25] » this is just a re a renewal, right? >> Pretty much so. Yeah.

[26:30] » Nothing's changed. I just finally got storm water figured out.

[26:35] » Yep. Yep. >> Had John Manard to get there with the

[26:38] shovel and dig it out. >> So, if there are no questions or

[26:42] comments, someone would like to take make a motion.

[26:47] » Uh I'll make a Grabowski make a motion to uh approve the conditional use grants

[26:52] of the applicant of Christian Brothers [clears throat] Automotive

[26:56] uh with the same uh conditions as previously approved.

[27:02] Second, Rodel. Go ahead. >> Okay.

[27:09] Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I.

[27:15] » I. >> Opposed.

[27:18] Motion is hereby granted. Conditional use is in play.

[27:22] Item B, review discussion of possible action on conditional use grant request

[27:27] by the village of Pewwaukee to establish an expanded lift station within the

[27:31] railroad right ofway located north of 512 Copy Drive. Public and/or private

[27:37] utility use is only permissible through the issuance of a conditional use grant

[27:41] section 40.2042. The railroad rightway is operated by

[27:46] CPKC and is zoned R5 residential VATS district. I hope everyone again has read

[27:53] this thoroughly. Are there any questions, comments as they have might

[27:57] have on this particular item. >> So again another reapproval.

[28:03] » It is this is the land use approval related to the project. um the the

[28:08] village and the railroad have finally come to an agreement on the

[28:12] authorization for the actual project at that location. Uh but our code requires

[28:16] a land use approval which was given in May of last year and we're in the same

[28:20] position Christian Brothers was that this actually did expire. So we do need

[28:24] a reapproval by this commission. >> There are any other questions or

[28:29] comments? Can I get a motion then? I'll make a

[28:33] motion the village of Milwaukee commissioner use grant for the new lift

[28:36] station um with prior approvals. >> Growski second.

[28:44] » We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I

[28:50] » opposed. Motion is hereby adopted. Item C, review discussion of possible action

[28:55] on a conditional use grant request of applicant James Kowski to construct a

[28:59] 6-ft tall fence. The structure is proposed at zero feet from the rear lot

[29:05] line. The reduction from the required five foot offset for fencing over four

[29:09] and a half feet tall is permissible only through the issuance of a conditional

[29:13] use grant and illegal non-conforming lot section 40.2104A.

[29:19] This.21 acres parcel located at 128 Park Avenue. PWV0896017

[29:28] is zoned R5 residential detached district. Property owner applicant is

[29:33] Jim Kowski. Again, I hope everyone's had a chance to read this over. Uh the

[29:38] applicant as stated before in the um public hearing would like to go to 8

[29:44] feet. Um but I would like um our attorney to address some of the issues

[29:51] that we heard this evening. >> Sure. So as far as the the oral

[29:56] amendments to the application that was made by the applicants that that is no

[30:00] issue. Um if the applicant is representing that he would like an 8oot

[30:04] fence now as part of the application that's fine. Even though it's agendaized

[30:08] as a a six-foot fence that's not the subject matter of the conditional use

[30:13] grant. the conditional use grant is for um reduction of the setback if the the

[30:19] [cough] commission feels [clears throat] that's appropriate. Um the comment I

[30:22] would have as to the the issue of the gap parcel. While I appreciate what the

[30:27] applicants are saying, um staff has reviewed this and I agree with the what

[30:33] the planner has recommended that we can't give approval. This commission

[30:38] can't give approval for a land use when we don't have knowledge of who even the

[30:43] owner is. And while I appreciate the applicants have been maintaining it, um

[30:48] you know, they may have a case that they have ownership rights one or the other

[30:52] or some sort of joint ownership, it hasn't not been confirmed by this survey

[30:57] or any any title report that we've seen. If it comes in the future, the planner

[31:01] has said we'll build that into the conditional use and if proof is provided

[31:05] to staff, that approval will be incorporated. But that's as far as I

[31:10] would recommend this commission go. I would not recommend that you grant any

[31:14] sort of approval to a parcel where we don't know who the the owner is at this

[31:18] point. Um, just to create a a good record for this and for the subsequent

[31:24] application, I'm going to ask the planner to just summarize the staff

[31:27] report as well if you could please. >> Sure.

[31:33] » There we go. So again, as we talked about during the

[31:37] the public hearing, um this is not the typical process for a fence. Typically,

[31:43] we look at the fence code portion of the the ordinance for that. Um but you know,

[31:50] there there is this pathway. Um there's nothing that says you can't apply for

[31:56] something like this for a fence. And so through the conditional use process, um

[32:02] you can apply any types of conditions that you want that are reasonable and

[32:06] measurable to this type of request. But I agree with the village attorney that

[32:11] um for the area that is unknown as far as its ownership. There'll need to be

[32:18] some type of survey work, title work, something to

[32:22] figure that out on the side. Um, I don't recommend granting any kind of approval

[32:27] for that given the that there's a question mark as far as that portion of

[32:31] the site. Um, as far as the uh overall process, we've now held the

[32:38] public hearing. You've heard the evidence given and the testimony as part

[32:42] of that. The plan commission can

[32:48] make a determination of of how you feel you want to proceed.

[32:53] the as as far as

[32:57] staff review goes, you've got draft conditions of approval in there. You can

[33:04] add anything you'd like that's again reasonable, measurable

[33:09] um that you feel would be appropriate should you want to um given any of the

[33:15] information that you've heard this evening. And so the

[33:20] again the overall view of the parcels is here. Um the

[33:28] as far we we talked about the the height of the fence

[33:33] being different than what was proposed. That's okay because you have the

[33:37] authority to grant that additional height as part of this CG grant. And so

[33:43] it's going to be six foot. If it's going to be 8 foot, you can decide if you want

[33:46] to approve the 8 feet as part of this request.

[33:50] Again, there there are certain things to consider as as far as a CG. If you

[33:56] looked at the conditional use criteria, we ask that you consider that in making

[34:01] your determination. Um,

[34:04] typically you you don't have to go through that and answer each of

[34:10] those. Just keep those in mind when when making any motions.

[34:19] » Are there any questions or comments from commission?

[34:25] » I have one question. I don't know if I should go to Matt or or planner. Um,

[34:33] as it relates to the 6-foot no man's land,

[34:38] if the board or if the commission so desires, can they

[34:43] approve it as it's stated here as an 8ft fence?

[34:49] But if the applicants come back let's say a

[34:55] week, two weeks or 3 weeks or whatever it is and are able to show that they are

[35:01] able to put that section in that section that 6ft section in. Can it be granted

[35:09] that the be part of the conditional use that staff they show it to staff and

[35:15] staff is able to approve that? >> Yes. And that's how the the planner in

[35:19] his staff report has drafted it. It would that's how it would be deferred to

[35:23] staff, but the onus is on the property owners to provide that proof.

[35:28] [clears throat] What we're saying is you don't have to come back for an

[35:30] additional conditional use, but there needs to be proof provided that

[35:33] establishes ownership of the gap parcel. If that occurs, it will be incorporated

[35:38] into the conditional use. Yes. >> Okay. And then just the only other thing

[35:42] is stating it's a eight foot fence, not a six.

[35:45] » Yes. and the the applicant has made an oral amendment to his application here

[35:50] that's on the record. Um that's his request that can as the planner said um

[35:56] be approved in that manner because really the conditional use here is the

[36:00] setback not the height difference. >> Are there any other questions or

[36:05] comments? >> If not someone like

[36:09] » I guess Oh, that's fine. I guess for me my my biggest concern is the zero flick

[36:14] setback. um going from five five to zero. um what's the what's the earnest

[36:21] on you know the property owners um or the adjacent property for you know

[36:28] maintaining that zero setback right so it's his it's it's the property owner's

[36:33] fence right so weeds rubbish maintenance of the fence things like that um he's

[36:42] going to have to go on the neighbor's property to maintain that whether that's

[36:47] weed whacking whether that's staining clean the back side of the fence, things

[36:51] like that, there's no there's no access for him, right? And then if the adjacent

[36:58] property owner is mowing the lawn, his lawn up to the property line, weed

[37:03] whacking whatever, then there's the concern of damage to that fence

[37:07] potentially. So the not necessarily opposed to the fence as a whole, but I

[37:13] think a zero setback seems like there could cause some other issues

[37:19] or concerns within that that system.

[37:26] » I think you run into those problems with any fence.

[37:28] » Yeah. But if it's five foot, right, then you have the ability to be on both

[37:33] sides. Five a five foot setback as with many of our properties in the village

[37:39] here is based on our normal lot sizes, >> right?

[37:43] » And all the this this property along with many of the other ones up and down

[37:47] Park Avenue are all non-conforming smaller than usual park. So a 5 foot

[37:52] setback when you have a 75 ft out your back door is not a big deal. When you

[37:57] have 15 feet out your back door totally understand,

[38:02] » no, I agree. I just think there's, >> you know,

[38:06] » I think also too, you know, to the points there, as you've seen that that

[38:10] garage was built with very limited with the minimal setback to

[38:16] lot. So with the height and the distance, I think it's, you know, I

[38:21] don't think we're asking too much for this.

[38:26] » I'm just for the record in this area that we are in

[38:34] whatever it is. Um there is currently no fence setback and actually on the other

[38:40] side of the 18 main street that fence isn't able to be on the property line

[38:46] because the 118 driveway is actually over the property line into the other

[38:51] parcel. So across 118 from us where the garage is that fence is on the property.

[38:59] That's the zero set back on that one. You go up and down part. It's all zero

[39:04] setbacks. >> Yeah. And and furthermore, as I don't

[39:06] think it was made very clear, this fence is only going

[39:10] » where where the >> sir, can I finish? Uh it's [snorts] only

[39:16] going where the uh adjacent property owner and this is a

[39:20] commercial property. Basically, this this guy is a he he owns the guy that

[39:25] owns these lots has has owned owned properties all over the place. and he

[39:28] built a garage there for his own use and then rents out the front house. So, he

[39:32] doesn't even live there. So, the garage is not going to block any patio or even

[39:35] come close to where the house is, where the renters are. So, an adverse effect

[39:39] on um property values or whatever for with with regard to the house or the

[39:46] rental is an absolute mood point.

[39:52] » Are there any other questions or comments?

[39:56] I um I have a different view. I I have a fence on my property which is I believe

[40:01] only five or six inches off but it's been there since

[40:06] 40 years ago and um never had an issue with any of

[40:12] the weeds or anything like that. But uh if it was a structure like a garage or a

[40:19] shed or something like that, I may be looking at this differently. But when it

[40:25] comes to a fence and putting it on a zero lot line or putting it right on the

[40:30] lot line, I have no problem with that at all. I I think that's you got to

[40:36] differentiate between the two. And I've seen over the years

[40:42] that when fences or even buildings are built

[40:47] off the property line, there's a problem maintaining on the other side for

[40:53] between the two properties. So, I think there'd be less of an issue building it

[40:58] on the property line and building it further up. Plus, again,

[41:03] the size of the lots, you're just you're just not there's nothing left when you

[41:08] put the fence up. So, I'm I'm fine with doing the zero lot

[41:15] line on this one.

[41:19] Any other comments?

[41:23] Well, then if there are no more comments, would someone like to make a

[41:26] motion?

[41:30] like to make a motion to approve the conditional use grant request uh by

[41:34] James Grabowski for the property on 128 Park Avenue uh with the conditions

[41:40] pointed out uh in the staff recommendation and also making the

[41:44] change uh to allow the 8ft high fence.

[41:52] » Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?

[41:57] All in favor say I. I opposed. Motion is hereby carried.

[42:04] Item D, review discussion and possible action on conditional use grant request

[42:09] of applicant Ken Ward to construct an 8ft tall fence. The structure is

[42:14] proposed at 0 feet from the rear lot line. A reduction from the required 5-ft

[42:20] offset for fencing over 4 and 1/2 ft tall is permissibly permissible only

[42:25] through the issuance of conditional use grant and legal non-conforming lot

[42:30] section 40.2104A.

[42:34] This 0.1 acre parcel located at 124 Park Avenue

[42:40] PWV0896018 is zoned R5 residential detach.

[42:46] Property owner applicant is Ken Ward. Again, this is the same situation we had

[42:51] in the prior one. So, I'll ask the commission, are there any questions,

[42:55] comments as it relates to this particular item? Seems like everything

[43:00] that was stated uh for the previous one by the planner

[43:04] is in this conditional use. >> Is that true, planner? This this staff

[43:10] report is substantially similar to the prior agenda item, right?

[43:15] Okay. So, what's is there any question? Other

[43:19] questions or comments? Do I have a motion? Then I'll make a

[43:24] motion to uh commission to approve the conditional use grants application of

[43:30] Ken Ward's construct 8oot fence. Uh with all the

[43:35] uh planners comments being applicable second.

[43:40] » Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I.

[43:46] » I. >> Opposed. Motion is hereby carried. Item

[43:51] E, review discussion and possible action on conditional use grant and plan of

[43:55] operation request of Lake Country barge to locate a boat lift and pure sale

[44:00] service repair and boat storage use and and boat related use is only permission

[44:07] permissible through the issuance of a conditional use grant section 40.3169.

[44:13] This request is located at 400 West Sussex Street PWV0897993.

[44:20] The proposed development on a 4.32 acre B5 light industrial district zone

[44:26] property. The property owned by Capital Acquisition LLC and applicant is like

[44:32] country barge. I'll ask the board. I hope everyone again has read through

[44:36] this. Are there any questions, comments or corrections as to the way this has

[44:42] been presented this evening to you?

[44:47] It's already a boat storage lift facility. You might as well leave it

[44:51] that way. >> Okay. If there's no further Yes.

[44:55] Question. >> So, these trees that aren't shown on the

[44:58] plan but are in the writing, >> can they be shown to the staff before

[45:02] they start planning them so we know actually

[45:06] where they are? Doesn't have to come back here, but

[45:10] » review like where they're actually located. Yeah, we've got condition four

[45:15] that says landscaping, fencing, and outdoor storage layout shall be

[45:18] submitted to village staff for review and approval prior to recording of the

[45:21] CU grant. Okay, thank you. >> Are there any other questions or

[45:26] comments? Um, I'll just go ahead and uh I'll make a motion that the village plan

[45:31] commission approve the conditional use request for Lake Country Barge the

[45:36] property located 400 Sussex subject to the conditions presented [clears throat]

[45:40] uh by staff in the agenda and packet. >> Kowski second.

[45:46] » Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

[45:51] All in favor say I. I >> I

[45:54] » opposed. Motion is hereby adopted. Review discussion and possible action on

[46:00] certified map survey map proposed to consolidate and reconfigure the existing

[46:05] two contiguous lots 851 East Wisconsin Avenue into one lot. These 0.33

[46:14] acre parcels are PWV09000061

[46:19] and PWC 09000064

[46:24] and are currently zoned R5 residential detach and FW floodway district. The

[46:31] applicants property owners are Dale and Mary Stalber. Again, commission, I hope

[46:38] you've had a chance to read through these. Are there any questions,

[46:41] comments, corrections as the way these are

[46:44] presented this evening to the planner, attorney or staff?

[46:53] » [cough] >> The only comment I would have is um

[46:56] there's a signature block for village board approval on this and I do not

[47:01] believe that this certified survey map is dedicating any public improvements to

[47:07] the village which under your code would be the only reason it has to go to the

[47:10] board. Um so just for the record and for the applicant's knowledge this does not

[47:16] have to go to the board that oh signature block can actually be removed.

[47:21] Okay. So, we can approve the survey map and not have to.

[47:24] » Correct. If this commission approves it unless the planner has other

[47:28] information. I don't believe there's any improvements being dedicated here.

[47:34] » Then your code allows plan commission approval for a certified survey.

[47:40] » Are there any other questions or comments? Thank you, ma'am.

[47:44] Then I'll look for a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the lot

[47:48] accommodation request at 4 or 851 East Wisconsin for the planners comments.

[47:56] » Second. >> Second, Ro. [cough]

[48:01] » All right, we have a motion and a second. Are there any comments?

[48:05] All in favor say I. >> I.

[48:08] » Oppos. Motion is hereby carried. Citizen comments. This is an opportunity for

[48:14] citizens to share their opinions with commission members on any topic they

[48:17] choose. However, due to Wisconsin open meeting laws, the commission is not able

[48:21] to answer questions or respond to your comments. All comments should be

[48:25] directed to the commission. Comments are limited three minutes per speaker.

[48:29] Speakers are asked to please use the podium and state their name and address

[48:32] for the record. Is there anybody here that would like to make a comment at

[48:35] this time?

[48:40] Okay, then we're going to go right to item seven, adjournment.

[48:45] » I move to adjourn. [laughter] >> Okay, what are we doing?

[48:48] » I didn't think about it. >> Got the game. I was going to get back.

[48:50] » Do we have a second? >> Growski second.

[48:53] » Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say I.

[48:57] » I opposed. >> We are hereby ajourn. Thank you everyone

[49:02] for your time this evening and comments. >> Thank you to the commission.

Plan Commission Meeting - 08/13/2026

Transcript