[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.