After the Village of Marshall’s potential four-unit apartment complex was denied through the planning commission and the board earlier this year, the owners created a revised plan that was tabled at the special hearing June 10. The discussion and the questions dealt with the process of submitting the new proposal more than the building itself.

Instead of applying for a planned unit development (PUD), which the owners did previously, they submitted a conditional use permit (CUP) application. Because it is a CUP and not a PUD, the officials unanimously voted to table it so the plan can go through the planning commission and then back up to the board again. The apartment is proposed to be a second building at 6116 State Highway 73.

It was recommended through both parties’ attorneys to apply for a CUP instead of a PUD. A PUD has more leniency and flexibility than a CUP, but if a PUD is denied, which it was twice, the group can always submit an application through a CUP.

With almost a dozen neighbors present, property owners, Mark Montanio and his son, Shawn, resubmitted a plan where the setback requirements were within the village ordinance. The new complex was previously planned to be a little bit behind the other complex located there, and the parking lot will be in front of the complex, Shawn Montanio said.

Shawn Montanio said that with the new plan would not affect the trees bordering one of the neighbor’s home, which was a concern at a prior village board meeting. “He (the neighbor) seemed pleased with that,” Shawn Montanio said.

“This is a unique situation because of the changes (going from a PUD to a CUP),” Village Administrator Adam Ruechel said.

He said the question is if the proposal should go back to the planning commission to go through the proper channels or through the board, since they requested a revised proposal. “There is some ambiguity in the process,” Ruechel said.

Village Board President John Schuepbach said that he is all about the procedure and fairness. “This is a unique procedure happening,” he said. Schuepbach said that when doing a CUP, it goes to the planning commission first.

“I want to make sure we do the right steps under fairness,” he said. Ruechel also talked about 2017 Wisconsin 67 Act, which requires a municipality to grant a conditional use permit if the applicant agrees to or meets all of the requirements and conditions specified in the relevant ordinance or imposed by the relevant zoning board.

“Since day one, I said if we deny it (the apartment plan), there has to be a reason,” Ruechel said. “There needs to be substantial evidence to deny. There needs to be concrete evidence.” He also said that if denied, the property owners, can go to circuit court.

One of the neighbors at the meeting said that the concern is not about having tenants in the neighborhood, it is just the location and said that if in the neighborhood, the possible new tenants would be treated as neighbors.

“The location is key,” she said. “The question is, ‘How would you like this in your backyard?”

This proposal will go back to the planning commission. The date of the meeting has not been scheduled.

“We just want to go about this in a fair way,” Schuepbach said.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.