Village of Clyman
713 Morgan Street
PO Box 129
Clyman, WI 53016
VILLAGE OF CLYMAN
MARCH 19, 2019-6:00 PM
Chairperson Beth Baehmann called the public hearing to order at 6:06 PM, with Plan Commission members Connie Kreitzman, Colleen Bruhn, Joe Roberts, Randy Key, and Todd Grady present. Also present was Mike Zwieg. Attorney Koepsell came late.
Pledge of Allegiance was said.
There were no public comments.
Ordinance-Discussion and possible action to amend the language of Clyman Village code 440-18-C-4. Striking out the language regarding no dwelling below the second floor in the business district. A motion by Dan/Randy to allow the recommended language change to Ordinance 440-18-C-4. Motion Carried.
Commission members reviewed the Conditional Use Permit application submitted by Mike Siegel. Discussion followed. Members agreed that what we received is incomplete and it is hard to tell what his intentions are. We need a much more detailed outline of what changes he wants to make. We should ask for a better drawing with more details and measurements and we would like it for both levels. It would be nice to see it the way it is now and how he wants to change it. We would like to know how many apartments will be on each floor.
Randy asked if the adjacent property owners were notified and if they have to provide written authorization to say they were OK with what is going on. Connie said she sent letters out to all adjacent property owners within 100 feet of the 942 property to notify them of the public hearing. They could come to the public hearing to voice questions or concerns. Beth said it was her understanding since he is not changing the dimensions of the building and it is all inside the current walls the neighbors did not need to sign anything.
Discussion was held on, water consumption, wastewater disposal, parking, and ownership of the building. We also talked about what could go in as conditions upon granting the conditional use permit. Such as lease agreements for the tenants, maintenance of the building surrender of the liqueur license. Attorney Koepsell advised that if we are going to disprove or prove something it needs to be based on substantial evidence and we have to have reasonable restrictions on any conditional use permit. We can’t say we think that this type of person is going to bring in a certain element that would be less than desirable for the business district or municipality. Attorney Koepsell said it would be a very reasonable restriction to say this is the business district and if we were allowing this, you need to keep the outside maintained if there is unsightliness it needs to be taken care of within a certain amount of time. It is also a very reasonable restriction to say this is conditionally approved upon your voluntarily surrendering the liquor license because it would make sense that you do not need a liquor license nor does the law allow you to have a liquor license in an area that is not a tavern.
The question was asked if in the event the Conditional use permit were approved is there any ramifications if he decides to start using the liquor license again. No, he can elect not to turn the building into apartments, it is his property he has the right to use it as a business in the business district without coming back to us. We can’t shut down the business use, we are adding additional use on top.
There is an expiration date on the Commission’s approval of saying yes you can do this in the business district, if after 24 months there is no construction going on, he would have to re-apply for the conditional use permit.
There is additional restriction that the building inspector is saying would need to be part of the conditional use permit so we would need to say that any proposed development will comply with the state building code and that is a condition of the building permit.
Attorney Koepsell advised we should send him something in writing stating that we had a hearing it was properly noticed, and we had some questions. We were unable to approve the applications at this time but if you would like to provide some more detail, we won’t make you reapply. We are not making the decision to disapprove it at this time, but we also can’t approve it in this current state we need more information
Joe suggested we have Attorney Koepsell put the letter together, the Plan Commission agreed. Attorney Koepsell will write the letter and send to Beth to verify that it accurately represents what we want it to. We cannot have a discussion by email so if something gets sent out do not reply to it is information only.
Connie asked if he would need to pay an additional fee. Attorney Koepsell said yes, it is a special meeting charge of $300.00 per Village Ordinance 440-31-G. If there is no response, we consider this disproved. A motion was made by Joe/Colleen to give the applicant 30 days to respond to the letter. Motion carried
A motion by Randy/Joe to adjourn Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:20pm.