How would you interpret this soil test situation...

[willie1280]

I've started the permit process to build my garage 

Background:  When i bought the land earlier this year the listing was advertised that they had a perc test which i was provided.  I read through it (never seen or had one done before) and all looked legit.  Holding tank required, okey dokey.  The perc test was done several years ago when a previous owner decided to split his single lot into 2 lots (1 being mine and the other being my current neighbor).

So to start the permit process, my first call was to county zoning admin.  He said you need a soil test, plot plan and fire number and variance application since my building will be less than 63' from the center line of a road.  When i told him i had the soil test and i read through what was on it, he said it wasn't valid because it only had a single boring instead of the required 3.

So i called the soil testing guy to setup my test before winter hits so that i can do all the paperwork over winter.  I did not mention there was a perc test done in the past.  All was going good until he made a comment that, everything should be a piece of cake as long as your not on lowland and require a holding tank.  Well, i am on lowland and considered shoreland zoning (per the disclosure report) and I already knew i needed a holding tank.

So i called back the zoning admin for 2 things.  First i told him what the soil guy said. Then i also told him about the comment i noticed on the perc document i was provided.  It said:
"A Soil and Site evaluation was not conducted due to County On Site letter verifying Holding Tank only situation.  Pat Virtues - Oconto County Sanitarian provided enclosed letter" 

I then asked the obvious question...before i spend the $300 on a soil test and $600 for land use, variance and building permits am i going to even get a permit based on what he said about lowland and B, do i even need a soil test if this "letter" already exist with the county.  He asked me to email him the document and he would get back to me.

Needless to say i was a bit peeved and didn't sleep a wink last night and kept thinking about this, hence my rant here.

Thoughts from you guys who've gone through this??

[flyingvan]

   Well, just some encouragement...I live in one of the most building restrictive areas you can find, and they leverage on site wastewater treatment as a way to push no growth desires....When I first bought a lot it was 'Not only no, but hell no'.  I kept going back to Department of Planning and Land Use, and Environmental Health, with different plans, schemes, and 'what if's'.  they eventually relented and worked with me.
    Mt attitude was to forage ahead.  The lot was very cheap because it was 'unbuildable'.  Now that there is a permitted structure, the whole thing is worth a lot.   Don't lose sleep---unless there are no structures in the surrounding area, there is a way to get it done

[willie1280]

Thanks for the vote of confidence!

[Dave Sparks]

Totally agree! Wear them down! Try going in on Fridays and keep them from going home early.
I did that with a Propane permit that they would not let me have until the house was there. Well, I wanted heat inside when I was finishing dry wall and painting during the winter. I think it took 4 times of the inspecter saying no and explaining why.
Then I would just say "but can't you just do it for me?"

[willie1280]

Well i still haven't gotten the verdict from the zoning admin yet.
I did he confirm he received it.
So i'm telling myself he's looking for the "letter" that's on file with the county.

Fingers crossed!!

[Canvasman]

The holding tank is not going to be the problem, my neighbor is building now and he has a permit from 10 years ago for a holding tank, this is price county WI. Your problem is shore land zoning, Wisconsin is not keen on building into wetlands. And, makes you stay away from shore land.

[willie1280]

Update 12/1/2016

GOOD NEWS
-So after 2 weeks, the zoning admin finally got back to me.  Apparently he went onsite and was able to verify some "benchmark" on a powerpole and confirmed that the soil test that was done several years ago would be sufficient.  So yaaa for that!

BAD NEWS
-Since he went onsite, he saw the small deck i built in front of my travel trailer.  Apparently i needed a permit for that.  So since it's ATF (after the fact) the land use permit fee goes from $160 to $320.  If i pay the $320, that permit will then also cover me for when i build the garage.  If i choose not to get the permit, i need to take the deck down in 30 days.
      -Since the deck is partially covering the area where i planned to put the garage, it was going to come down anyway in spring.  So i'll likely remove it.  I may ask if they'll let me wait till spring so i can get the post out of the ground without having to dig them out or cut them off, but i'm sure they won't give me any wiggle room there.

-He also pointed out that there's a 60 day policy for travel trailers at which point they need to be removed for 24hrs before they can sit for another 60.  This irked me a bit because i specifically asked (in writing) to the realtor if there were any restrictions on the property, and he said no.  I also looked at all the other documents he provided at the sale and nothing is mentioned about travel trailer restrictions.  With that said, do i have anything to stand on to push back on this "rule" ?


On a side note...Variances.
Because of how my property is laid out, i'm limited on where i can put a structure.  Since my structure may be less than 63' from the centerline of the road, i may need to apply for a variance which cost $400.  I asked if i pay this fee regardless of their decision and he said yes.  YIKES!!  That's an expensive gamble.  Are variances parcel specific?  I have neighbors on either side of me that have setbacks that are less than the minimums from the road and edge of the lake.  So they must have been granted variances.  Does that increase my probability of getting one?

[MountainDon]

Re: travel trailer. That is usually a zoning issue that affects all the lots in the developed area, not just specific to this property.  I doubt you have any leg to stand on to push back against that.

Re: variance. Are the other lot structures newish or oldish, and how old is the rule about setbacks?  Old structures could be an indication they were grandfathered in as existing. Or their presence could indicate a likelihood of a variance being granted. Talk to the neighbors. Maybe they can give you a letter stating they have no problem with you being granted a variance.

[flyingvan]

Our county's setback schedule is pretty clear that you can match the setbacks of adjacent properties.  Many counties list their zoning ordinance online, and include setback rules.  So if your neighbors are all 40' from the road but the setback is 60',  read the ordinance to see if you can match the 40' of your neighbors

[flyingvan]

This is from Oconto County Zoning.  Just put 'setback' in the search function.
"4.    Front  (road)  setbacks  and  water  front  setbacks  m
ay  be  reduced  on  the  approval  of  the  zoning
administrator  where  there  are  principal  buildings  a
lready  located  on  the  adjoining  lots,  where  such
buildings are within 200 feet of a common lot line
and where such buildings are located closer to the
same road or water body than the present ordinance
would allow. Averaging may also be used if the
principal  structure  is  located  on  a  corner  lot  by  u
sing  the  structures  on  the  adjoining  lot  and  the  lo
t
adjoining that lot provided such buildings are with
in 200 feet of the closest lot line and such buildi
ngs
are  located  closer  to  the  same  road  or  water  body  t
han  the  present  ordinance  would  allow.    In  no
case  may  averaging  reduce  the  setback  below  40  feet
,  and  averaging  may  only  be  used  if  the
required setback can not be achieved  without the us
e of averaging.  The administrator shall add the
actual  setback  of  non-conforming  neighboring  princi
pal  structures  plus  the  required  setback  and
divide  by  the  number  of  items  added  to  calculate  th
e  reduced  setback  line  for  the  subject  property. 
Where there is only one neighboring principal struc
ture, averaging can not take place.  Measurement
is  to  be  done  from  the  nearest  straight,  bearing  wa
ll  to  the  setback  line  in  question.    Averaging  can
not  be  done  using  decks,  patios,  or  any  similar  obj
ects,  or  using  accessory  structures. "