Town of Rushford Zoning Committee


September 29, 2010

7:00 pm

Town of Rushford Town hall


Meeting called by

Tom Jackson at 7:10 pm


Tom Jackson, Jan Clausen, Larry Hildebrand, Dean Kaderabek, Peggy Hendricks, Tom Egan, Fred Kasten, Jerry Schoonover, Teri & Don Wagoner, Sean Edinger, Renee Kasuboski, Patsy Pomplun, Kurt Schoeni, Tom Schroeder


Agenda topics



Public hearing on zoning change for tom schroeder





Fred Kasten read the Public notice for Tom Schroeder, 3094 Spring Street Eureka, request for a zoning change of R-1 and A-2 to Commercial for Parcel # 022 120701.  Survey maps were handed out.  The property in question is “The Market Place”.  This property never had an owner until Tom Schroeder acquired the land from the county.  The property is zoned R-1 and A-2.  The property is .24 A.  The CSM combined 2 lots into 1.  Teri Wagoner asked if the requirements for commercial was 1 A , with a rear yard setback of 50’ and frontage of 100’.  Dean Kaderabek said this would be so if they were creating a new lot. 


Kasten said what the town is trying to do is create something that is compatible to the neighborhood.  A person could zone it R-1, but with the lot area and the services required, such as a well, sanitary system, etc – it becomes unmarketable piece of property, for it would never met any of the set backs for R-1 and Commercial is one of the better options Kasten feels for a person would be able to use the property.  It would not require septic and water.  No discussions at this meeting will be made on the size building to sit on there.  What the best use of that property and still be compatible with the adjacent area around it is the question.


Kasten stated that none of the properties will meet any of the requirements for lot size, frontage, etc for any kind of district that we create. 


Egan commented that he wants to put in a commercial building that is surrounded by residential buildings.  He feels we can’t just look at the lot; we have to consider the building.  It was stated by Schroeder that water is stubbed in on the tour prior to the meeting. 


Kasten stated that it should just be for the lot, for if he wants to put up a storage shed, that would be a variance application for the appeals board because of the set backs, etc.


Dean Kaderabek commented that it is a residential area.  When you are talking a Commercial District, you are talking lighting & parking.  He also stated that the Towns Future Land use map identifies this as a residential area. 


Tom Schroeder commented that he will be using this just for personal use.  There is a tree line separating his lot from others and the drive way would come off the side street.  Tom Jackson explained that even though he is zoned now as R-1 and A-2, the future land use map designated it as R-1. 


Tom Egan said the problem with Commercial is that the land could be used for anything.  Right now Mr Schroeder can say it will only be for personal use, but what if it is sold and someone then could put in a used car lot or do a number of things since it was zoned Commercial. 


It was asked if he could put a garage on it if it stayed Residential.  It was stated that he would have to apply for a Conditional Use permit.  Kasten mentioned that the problem is the land is not attached to any residence.  Mr Schroeder would have to get a CUP, and if he sold it, he would have to transfer the CUP to the new owner.  If it was put into Commercial, you can transfer the property and the building would be used as it is. 


Wagoners stated that their concerns were if he put storage units in there and sells it, then a person could put any kind of business in there.  If it was kept residential, all he could put there is a garage.  They do not want a business on that corner.  The bus stops there and they do not think it should go commercial.   They showed pictures of the work that Schroeder has done for drainage already.  They say that it is going to their property and will affect their drainage field.


If a building goes in there, they would need a variance permit before a building permit.  But this meeting is not for discussing a variance on the property. 


Sean Edinger commented that he prefers not to see a commercial property in a residential area.  He did inquire the Sheriff’s office on statistics on criminal activities by storage units.  If it was zoned commercial, he would like to see restrictions on times of accessibility. 


Larry Hildebrand asked if the lot has to be built up to the grade of the road.  When you put the setbacks in, there is not much room to build on. 


Tom Schroeder stated that he went to Martinson & Eisling and they gave him all the setbacks that he would need.  Tom Jackson said he was working off a residential map, not commercial.


Tom Egan asked the committee what happens if this property is not rezoned.  What can he do?


Fred Kasten said that the property is not recorded in the Register of Deeds office.  Until you make a lot of one out of the 2 parcels, then you decide to make it A-2, A-3, R-1 or Commercial.  You can’t have duel zoning on one piece of property.  Once it is decided what district it is, you can find out what kind of building you can put on there by applying for a variance permit. 


Tom Egan asked if property is listed down in the courthouse in Mr Schroeder’s name.  Kasten stated that part of this parcel; we are collecting no taxes on.  Wagoner stated that was correct for they were delinquent.  Kasten said it is in his name, but no taxes have been collected on this for a very long time.  He says that what we are trying to do is take the piece that he had acquired and plus the other land to make a tax parcel.  There is no tax description number at this time according to the computer.  The parcel was created by Martinson and Eisling, and part of it is A-2 and part R-1.  Dean stated that even though there is not a legal description, it does not mean that it does not exist.  It’s all there, it’s legal and recorded and it is valid. 


The only decision tonight is if the land will be rezoned to Commercial. 




Motion by Kaderabek to deny the application because the subject property is currently residential in nature, the future land use map identifies it as single and 2 family residential area, and it does not meet the minimum area requirements for commercial property.  2nd by Jan Clausen.  Motion carried.  This will be on the board agenda on October 6th for a final vote. 

Agenda topics


public hearing for Conditional use for Roger Kasuboski



Fred Kasten read the public notice for Roger Kasuboski, 3375 State Road Omro, who is requesting a Conditional use permit for parcel # 022 052102 and #022 052801 to have a 45’x60’ movable shed/shelter unit. 


Renee Kasuboski stated that they have had the property for a couple of years, they had put in a driveway and they put the shed up to store machinery.  They do not plan on having it there forever.  They plan on moving it probley next year.  Tom Jackson asked if they plan on building a home.  They do not have a time frame for the home, for they need to get the well, septic and her husband had been unemployed. 


Tom Egan asked what kind of equipment they plan on storing.  She mentioned a tractor, corn planter and farm machinery. Dean Kaderabek asked if they had a valid sanitary permit for that property.  She stated that she did.  They do not have a septic installed as of yet, but they planned on putting one in a couple of years ago.  They took out all the permits they needed for a new home.  Dean stated that a sanitary permit will lapse after 2 years unless it is renewed.  He asked if it was renewed and she stated that she did not know. 


Dean asked her to describe temporary.  He has never heard of a temporary structure that was 60x45.  She stated that they put it up to put the equipment in right now.  The equipment was across the street, but they sold that parcel.  Dean asked if it was under shelter when it was across the street and she stated it was not. 


Tom Egan stated that Roger Kasuboski did come to see him and asked if he could put up a moveable shed.  Roger also stated that he talked to Mrs Hendricks.  The question was if it was moveable or not and he had not gotten a building permit.  He was informed he could not get a building permit until


Kurt Schoeni, 3369 Hwy 116 stated that it was unfortunate that Roger Kasuboski was not there.  He believes all this is smoking mirrors.  He said that Kasuboskis family members have said that it was purchased a year ago with the intent of putting up a structure to store dump trucks.  He stated that he is advertising as a Commercial Transport Company.   He feels as it is registered as an LLC that has employees and an income, and it is not on commercially zoned property.  He feels that it will only be a matter of time until there are problems such as noise and more construction equipment.  This is being operated as a commercial piece of property in between farms and a sub division. 


Mr Schoeni had a printout of the advertisement for the business at He feels that property will be used for commercial business and that all the facts have not been disclosed to the zoning committee.  He also feels that the building is not a moveable building.


Tom Jackson asked what restrictions are on A-2.  Fred Kasten stated that any accessory building that is built has to be for an agricultural purpose.  Anything else would require a conditional use.  He feels this application should have been advertised as an application for a conditional use of an accessory building and the moveable part is questionable for you have to be specific on where it will be located.  If they are going to be building a residence there, they will need a site plan that shows where the residence and all the buildings will sit.  When the time comes when it will be a permanent building, it will have to be on a site plan to show where it will be located.  Usually a moveable building is anything you can hook a vehicle on and move it here to there in a couple of hours.  Kasten said he does not consider the building as moveable.  He feels that if a Conditional Use permit is given, it should specify what you will allow in the building. 


Mr Schoeni stated that the DOT gave the driveway permit for residential and there are a lot of trucks and other equipment running in and out of there.


Tom Jackson asked if the building will be used for anything else besides agricultural use.  Tonight they saw a camper and dump truck in there.  He asked why the building was placed there and not where they intend to move it later.  Mrs Kasuboski stated because the driveway was there.


Dean pointed out Section 3.51 on what is allowed on A-2. 


Tom Egan asked Mrs Kasuboski if they do plan on building a house, for the building has to be behind the house, not in front of it.  He also stated that he did have a call from KDS and did not know why they were not at the hearing.  They did change hands and the certified letter was sent to the previous owner.  They did express that they were very concerned and they think it is an eyesore for the lots they have for sale. 


Dean commented that if they are uncertain when they are going to be building a home, how can he be certain about a conditional use permit and a time line?


Tom Egan said it might be better if we waited until Roger was here for the meeting.  If it was decided not to give the Conditional Use permit, the building would have to come down immediately or be fined, and he does not feel it is right that she has to go home and tell him. 


Larry Hildebrand as if KDS was notified.  Hendricks explained that she goes on the GIS map and gets the addresses for all the properties touching.  She did not realize that KDS just switched hands a couple of months ago and the certified letter was sent and signed by the land owner listed on the GIS map. 


Hendricks stated that the application was sent out with a letter explaining that it had to be received in 10 business days and if it was not, they would be fined $50/day as stated in our ordinance.  The application came in 6 days late, but no fines were sent out, for she was just happy to get the application.  Tom Jackson asked if there was a building permit, which there is not.  Tom Egan explained he could not get a building permit until this was straightened out. 



Motion by Larry Hildebrand, 2nd by Tom Egan to postpone for 30 days so Roger Kasuboski can attend and KDS can be properly notified.  Mr Schoeni asked if that was common practice, for he was notified and was at the hearing.  He had left work and has to return to work.


Larry amended the motion that no more can be added to the building or construction of any kind can be done.


Dean commented that he agrees with the audience.  This has been going on for a long and it has been posted and letters sent.  Tom Egan commented that he agrees if it was just Mr Kasuboski, but he would be a little nervous since he does not think KDS was notified properly.  They do not live around the area, so they would not of seen the postings. 


Motion carried with one nay.  Mr Jackson asked Mrs. Kasuboski if she fully understood the motion.  He stated that there can be no construction and no changes until the next hearing.  As per the towns ordinance, if there is any changes, the town will fine $50/day.  She stated that she understood. 















































































Agenda topics


Discussion on Erdman property



Tom Egan stated that Erdmans, 8858 Edgewater Road, had a Conditional Use Permit a few years ago to be able to live in a trailer while they were building a house.  They never built a house and Mr Erdman has moved out.  Mr Egan had heard that there was talk of getting renters in there.  The neighbors had written and signed a Petition as to not allow this.  It was noted that the Conditional use permit is expired and no one is allowed to live there.  The Conditional use permit was issued to Mr Erdmans mother and not to him.  The Conditional use permit does not transfer to others.  A new one would have to be issued.


Hendricks will send a letter to Mrs Erdman informing her that her Conditional use permit has expired and no one can reside in any structures that are on the property unless another Conditional Permit is issued.   
















Agenda topics


old business



Hendricks asked if anyone had checked to see if Mr. Wilke had seeded down Arlo Pit as per the letter sent 3 months ago requiring him to have this done by September 1, 2010 as part of his terms of the reclaimation.  Kafer and Egan stated that they had gone by, but had not seen any work done.


 A letter will be sent to Mr Wilke and to Scott Gunko with East Central Planning.


Hendricks passed out examples of other townships public nuisance ordinances for the committee to view.

Kaderabek reported on the progress with the no wake ordinance.  He stated he received an email from WI DNR warden and they referred him to their Safety & regulations specialist.  So he is waiting to hear from them if there are any bouys on record.


Tom Jackson noticed that at least 2 of the 911 numbers are covered up with brush or hard to read.  Kasten said that it is in the ordinance that the property owner is to maintain the signs and they are responsible to make sure they are easily seen from the road.


Fred Kasten stated that Robert Freeman will be asking for a variance and that a hearing should be scheduled as soon as possible.  Hendricks stated that she has been contacting the members of the appeals board and once she contacts everyone, a posting will be sent to the paper and the meeting will be scheduled at the earliest possible time.  She was considering the week of October 11th. 


Tom Egan informed everyone that volunteers will be at the town hall on Saturday, October 2nd to start construction on the play area.  All volunteers are welcome.  The start time will be 9:30.


Sean Edinger stated that he had talked to Lt Gracy Cianciole who is in charge of the Winnebago Boating Patrol.  His number is 236-7385 and he might be a resource in helping with our no wake ordinance. 


























Motion by Egan, 2nd by Kaderabek to adjourn.  Motion Carried.  Meeting adjourned at 9:15.