Packet on the Screen Does Not Contain the Item Added That Is Scott Barnes – 10249 Shannon Square – New Commercial Building

VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM FOUNDED 1853

PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, April 27, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. 9996 Water Street

NOTE: This Meeting of will be simultaneously held via teleconferencing. Staff, committee members and the public are welcome to participate in this manner. Seating at the village hall will occur in compliance with social distancing recommendations. As such building occupancy will be limited to 10 visitors. Teleconferencing will be available by computer, phone, tablet, or dial in. Connection information below:

*Face Masks Are Required For Those Attending In Person

1. Call to Order 2. Quorum 3. Changes in Agenda 4. Visitors’ Comments 5. Approve Previous Plan Committee Minutes 6. Fred & Stacy Bridenhagen – 9932 Water St -Sign 7. Brimi North LLC – 10349 N. Orchard – Accessory Structure – Special Exception (height), Conditional Use (Acc. Structure in front of Principal) 8. Richard Helser – 2788 Beachtree Ln. – New SFR – Special Exception (height) 9. Peninsula Music Festival - Event 10. New business for next meeting 11. Adjournment

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/453428373

You can also dial in using your phone. United States: +1 (312) 757-3121 Access Code: 453-428-373

A quorum of the Village Board will be present at the meeting. It is possible that a quorum of the Village Historic Preservation Committee or other Village Committees may be present at the meeting. However, no action will be taken by the Board or any other committee unless specifically noticed.

Date 4/23/2021 X Village offices Andrea Collak, Clerk X Visitors’ Center X Post Office X Website ephraim-wisconsin.com Megan Sawyer, Deputy Clerk X Faxed to WDOR Radio

Administrative Office 10005 Norway Road PO Box 138 Ephraim WI 54211 Phone: (920) 854-5501 Fax: (920) 854-2072 E-Mail: [email protected]

VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM of the Village of Ephraim. FOUNDED 1853

Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 23, 2021 – 7:00 PM Teleconference Meeting

Present: Ken Nelson, Matt Meacham, Andy Bartelt, Susie Samson, Grace Held, Monique McClean Absent: Michael McCutcheon Staff: Brent Bristol- Administrator, Andrea Collak-Clerk/Treasurer Guests: Jenny Miller, Elfie Johnson, Richard Helser, Anne Hart, Bob Kiekhaefer, Lane Methner, Andy Van Duym

1. Call to order: Meeting called to order by Brent Bristol-Administrator at 7:00 P.M. Bristol requested that a temporary chair be appointed for this meeting.

Motion per Meacham to appoint Ken Nelson as temporary chair for this meeting, seconded by Bartelt, all ayes and motion carried.

2. Quorum: A quorum is present for this meeting. 3. Changes in Agenda: Bristol reported that he sent out the amended agenda shortly after sending the original last week. The packet on the screen does not contain the item added that is Scott Barnes – 10249 Shannon Square – New Commercial Building – Concept Review. The item will be placed as item number 10 and items 10 and 11 will be moved back down.

4. Visitors’ comments: Elfie Johnson mentioned that she lives at the intersection of Townline and German Road. Johnson pointed out a new house located kitty-corner from Norway and the German intersection. Johnson is concerned about a big piece of machinery that has been sitting on the edge of the property for over a year without being moved. It is an absolute eyesore. Johnson communicated with Bristol and found out that their building permit started in June 2019 and according to Bristol lasts for two years. Johnson believes that after the house is built, the building construction equipment should be removed or should be put somewhere where it is not an eyesore. The property has become a garbage dump. German road is pride and joy for everyone who lives there. Johnson would like the committee to notify the owner of the property. Johnson questioned whether a building permit allows for parking and storing of the building machinery on the property. Johnson has never seen it like this before. If the owner has still work to do, he should hide that big piece of equipment and bring it back when work needs to be done, concluded Johnson. Bristol reported that he reached out to the owner. Based on the conversation with the owner, landscaping still needs to be done this spring. The owner has every intention to finish his project this spring. The uniform dwelling code permit is good for two years so that it will expire in June of 2021. Nelson said that the owner has until June 2021 to finish his construction. The action can be taken after June 2021 if the construction equipment is not out of the property.

5. Previous minutes: Minutes from 1/26/2021 Motion per Bartelt to approve the January 26, 2021 meeting minutes as presented, seconded by Meacham, all ayes and motion carried.

Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday March 23, 2021 Page 2 of 8

6. Brimi North LLC – 10349 N. Orchard – Accessory Structure – Special Exception (Height), Conditional Use (Acc. Structure in front of principal) Bristol introduced this item. Special exception for accessory structure higher than 15’ and conditional use for the accessory structure located in front of the principal structure is required for this project. From a height standpoint, the request is for a garage of 24’6” in height with a 12/12 roof pitch. By application, it is to match the pitch of the existing principal structure on the property. This information did go out to neighbors within a 300’ radius.

Anne Hart, 10361 N. Orchard Road, in her letter introduced herself as being the third- generation owner of the property at 10361 N. Orchard Road. Hart’s property abuts 10349 N. Orchard Road, whose owner is requesting a special exemption and conditional use allowance relating to the construction of a new accessory structure, a 24.6 foot tall, two-story garage.

Hart is opposed to this request because of its negative visual and aesthetic consequences and impact on her property. Hart in her letter urges the committee to deny the exemption as proposed or to place specific conditions upon it.

The request is for a garage that is 24.6 feet tall, which exceeds the 15-foot limit in the zoning code by 9.6 feet. This garage will be only 3.4 feet shorter than the allowable height of a principal house. It will be used to support their existing house of almost 4,000 sq. ft.

Hart’s house is approximately 180 feet from the proposed structure and roughly 12 feet tall. The proposed structure will be 24.6 feet tall, which would be twice as tall as her house.

The portion of Hart’s property that abuts the area of the proposed structure is a two-acre prairie meadow, a treeless landscape that is dominated by native grasses and wildflowers, that for the last five years she and her husband have been actively restoring and maintaining, and in which they have created a network of paths and built two benches to increase access. They also have built and installed several bluebirds and raptor nest boxes. This area might look like just an empty field and some might wonder why it deserves to be shielded from a new highly visible tall garage. Their meadow restoration is an intentional effort, involving a habitat management plan, that seeks to contribute to the conservation of habitat diversity in Ephraim. A snapshot of their restoration efforts includes: smothering portions of the site for a full growing season to remove weeds, the ongoing removal of invasive species, planting a summer buckwheat smother crop for a full season followed by fall planting of winter wheat, deep soil tillage several times over a growing season, and exposing the soil surface by repeated mowing and raking. They have enlisted the help of restoration professionals. Also, they have planted more than fifty different species of native trees, shrubs, and perennials, with plans to do more of the same over the next several years. It is discouraging that all the care and effort we are taking could be marred by the highly visible placement of a new tall building.

The proposed tall garage would appear prominently in the sightlines of their restoration and naturalization project, and would visually impose itself upon the space. It would be very difficult if not impossible to screen such a tall building from view. The proposed structure also appears to have outdoor light fixtures on the rear of the building that could contribute to light pollution at night. This tall structure would change the visual character of Hart’s property, disturb the harmony with the natural landscape that they have been working so hard

Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday March 23, 2021 Page 3 of 8

to achieve, and clash with their meadow restoration efforts, thereby compromising the visual landscape.

Hart went on to say that they have a private property right to restore the land and their neighbors have a private property right to build a garage. The balancing of the reasonable use and aesthetic values of our property with the right of adjoining owners to reasonably use their property forms the underlying tension of this zoning request. There is, however, a way to accomplish both owners’ goals.

The design for the new accessory structure proposed by the applicant could be modified so that an exception is no longer needed if its height is lowered to comply with the zoning code, and its outdoor light fixtures in the rear of the building are eliminated to minimize impact. Conditions could be placed to require landscaping to minimize its visual impact. (There is no mention in the application of how many trees will be removed or any landscaping plans.) Alternatively, the size of the applicant’s parcel presents the option of moving the proposed structure to another location, such as the south side of the circular driveway and house, to visually distance it from their meadow restoration. This would serve as a compromise to allow the owners to have what they want—a two-story garage—while providing a screen and distance from the consequences and visual distraction of the garage’s height. This would still require an exemption, but it is one Hart would support.

Hart at the meeting added that she is the closest neighbor to the proposed structure. After receiving the notice, Hart contacted the owner of the property, told her of her concerns about how the height would affect the meadow restoration, appealed to her to lower the height of the proposed accessory structure, and attempted to discuss alternatives. Unfortunately, the conversation was limited. Hart believes that the zoning code is in place to further the aesthetic objectives of the Village of Ephraim. Hart reiterated the information stated in her letter. Andy Van Duym; Ann Hart’s husband stated that the owners located the proposed garage towards their property where many trees would need to be removed to build the garage. If the proposed garage would be of the standard height or moved 180 degrees to the other side of their driveway it would make a significant difference just visually in terms of an impact on our property, concluded Van Duym.

Meacham had no comments. Samson thinks that the proposed structure would be massive. Samson believes that if the structure went on the other side it might obstruct the applicant's view from one of the other houses. Held would like to know from the applicant why it has to be 9.5’ over the required height. Held believes that neighbors should talk to each other and maybe come to a compromise either on the height or on the location of the proposed garage. At this point, Held is not in favor of this project. Nelson also believes that neighbors should get together and talk about this. Nelson is a little disappointed that the applicant is not present to explain. Bartelt spoke against granting an exception. Bartelt believes that the burden of proof is on those who ask for an exception. Our ordinance starting point is 15 feet. The applicant has not made a burden of proof argument this evening. The fact that we ask for concerns from anyone who lives 300’ radius of the proposed project must be taken seriously. Bristol clarified that this is not a variance, the ordinance allows the applicants to seek accessory buildings higher than 15 feet by special exception for aesthetic purposes that are

Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday March 23, 2021 Page 4 of 8

specifically stated to match roof pitches/roof heights of principal buildings. Meacham believes that the applicant does not need to be here to answer the questions. This applicant has a piece of property that they pay taxes on and they are within their rights to do this without the approval of the neighbor. Neighbors can have input. Meacham does not believe the committee has a reason to deny this project based on the application. Samson brought up the case from last year where the applicant agreed to reduce the height of the roof by 2 feet. Nelson added that in that case neighbors got together and agreed on a compromise. McClean said that in that case, the accessory building had plumbing. This project does not require that, added McClean.

Motion per Meacham to accept an Accessory Structure, Special Exception (Height), Conditional Use (Acc. Structure in front of principal) application for Brimi North LLC at 10349 N. Orchard as presented, seconded by McClean, Meacham aye, McClean aye, Bartelt nay, Samson nay, Held nay, Nelson nay and motion failed.

Nelson encouraged the applicant to get together with a neighbor, see if they come to a compromise, and then come back to the committee.

7. Richard Helser – 2788 Beachtree Ln. – New SFR – Special Exception (Height) Bristol introduced this item. This property is in a rural residential district and does not require a special exception for accessory structures larger than 15 feet in height. In rural residential, they are permitted up to 28 feet. The notice did go out to neighbors within a 300’ radius. Bristol did not receive any written correspondence regarding this item.

Richard Helser pointed out again that the proposed structure is in a rural residential area and garage, the accessory structure is not over the height limit. It is going to be shy of 35 feet which were allowable according to zoning requirements and what the seller told him at the time of purchase. The house will be connected to the garage with an arbor.

Bob Kiekhaefer, a neighbor of one property east of the proposed project, commented that they did not ask for special exceptions when building his house but at considerable expense went deeper to create his home. It will also create visual discrepancy, we are going to see a big roofline from Townline where you currently barely see any. Kiekhaefer and his wife built their house there for a reason and with restrictions in mind. They would like to see those restrictions upheld, concluded Kiekhaefer.

Next door neighbor Jenny Miller pointed out that there are one of the five parcels on Beachtree Lane and one of the first that purchased a parcel in that development. There are covenants in place that mandate size and type of structures to keep continuity in development. Therefore, you do not want one house much taller than the others. The Millers signed the documents agreeing to that when they purchased the land and had to make a few changes to abide by the covenants when in building stages themselves. We are not trying to create a hardship for Mr. Helser and we do welcome him as our new neighbor. Hopefully, he chooses to follow the covenants as we all had to, added Miller. Miller inquired about the projected height of the main dwelling.

Helser said that covenants on page 3 item number 2 state that the height of any structure on the lot shall be 35 feet maximum height. Helser does not understand how he does not abide by

Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday March 23, 2021 Page 5 of 8

covenants. It is the Village that has 28 feet in the zoning ordinances but also has that you can go up to 35 feet by special exception which is what we are asking for.

The Village is not in the position to enforce covenants, stated Nelson. The ordinance has 28 feet but there can be an exception made by the Planning Committee. We need to understand why the proposed dwelling has to be more than 28 feet to make such an exception. We need to understand why the house can not be lowered to the ground.

The contractor for the project explained that the height was raised because roof trusses are going to be used. Right now the minimum height is 33’1”. There are a lot of variables so we are asking for 34 feet. Bristol clarified that plans were amended going from rafters to roof trusses. This change would add more than 2 feet if it is 30 feet to grade with 7 steps up to the first floor it would be 4 feet plus another 3 feet. Nelson feels that the committee is not looking at the plans that are going to be used to build the house. We are going to need the maximum dimensions you are asking for to consider the special exception.

Meacham believes that based on the last application that came before us we have to apparently consider the people that have spoken and that they are exceeding; not exceeding; what the prior application had. So to be consistent they need to get together and work this out. McClean would like to have a little be more clarity on the plans to have the ultimate roofline numbers and we do not have to base our decision on something that might change. Samson agreed. Bartelt asked why the applicant could not follow the ordinances and lower the pitch. Held asked whether the crawlspace would be built below the ground or above the ground. Helser replied that the crawlspace would be under the first floor and they would not want to have their porch at grade level but would like to look over their property from the porch which was the whole idea. Held thinks that the numbers on what final height is going to be are a little bit fuzzy and believes that the committee needs more information. Helser believes the information was provided. Contractor asked for 33 feet, added Helser. Held said she would have no issue if 33 feet is the true final height. Nelson asked whether the applicant considered lowering the crawlspace. Helser is not interested in lowering the porch.

Meacham said that the proposed height, in this case, is way above the height from the previous item. Therefore, to be consistent on what was last passed we cannot pass this application. Helser pointed out that this project is in rural residential zoning rather than residential zoning and it is a principal structure rather than an accessory structure. McClean asked whether there are any other options before denying this application. Helser said that he would have no issue with lowering the porch from 4 feet to 3 or 2 and a half feet. Nelson pointed out that there are many homes with basements in the area and that would also solve the problem if he could lower it to the ground level. Even if he has to do that we still do not have a complete plan in front of us, said Meacham. Bartelt said the burden of proof is on those asking for a special exception. You design a house to fit the ordinances and do not adjust the ordinances to what you want to build. And if you want to adjust the ordinances that you should make your case. Bartelt does not think it was done this evening. Bartelt went on to say that it seems strange that the contractor could not build a two-story house within the Village ordinances. Just ground to the peak of the two-story house as the contractor designed it is 29 feet and the ordinance accepts 28 feet. Nelson said that the committee has to have a complete set of modified plans. The Village

Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday March 23, 2021 Page 6 of 8

of Ephraim tries to stick with its ordinances and not let every exception just go through so we do not lose control of the things that make the Village attractive.

Motion per Bartelt to deny the New SFR, Special Exception (Height) application for Richard Helser at 2788 Beachtree Lane as presented, seconded by Nelson, Meacham aye, McClean aye, Nelson aye, Bartelt aye, Samson aye, Held nay, and the motion carried.

8. Lauren Lopez Trust – German Rd – New SFR Bristol introduced this item. Final application on new construction. Bristol said that the project is compliant with all dimensional standards of the Village and is here for design review.

Hugh Mulliken pointed out that the house is a two-story house with an attached garage, 27 feet high, and meets all dimensional standards. The color of the trim is white and the roof is black. Held commented that it would be helpful to have dimensions were put on plans that the committee members see. Mulliken has no problem doing that in the future. Held inquired about the silt fence. Mulliken explained that the purpose of the silt fence is to retain soil on disturbed land from flowing out to the neighboring properties.

Motion per Bartelt to approve the New SFT, Design Review application for Lauren Lopez Trust on German Road as presented, seconded by McClean, all ayes and motion carried.

9. Ephraim Business Council – Event Permit – Fyr Boom Bristol introduced this item. Due to still ongoing Covid 19 situation Ephraim Business Council decided to cancel FyBal but celebrate that weekend with a fireworks display. Lane Methner added that this year EBC is looking to implement Fyr Boom which would just be showing off fireworks that evening to celebrate the start of summer. We can do that safely as people can spread out whether along the shoreline or on yards and porches and bring people into the Village and village businesses.

Meacham does not see an issue with scaled-down FyrBal and Fyr Boom. However, if there is no FyrBal that there should not be fireworks. Since FyrBal is canceled we should not attract large crowds for fireworks, added Held. Held would rather EBC would save the fireworks for next year. Bartelt was for it till two minutes ago. McClean agreed with Meacham and Held. Bartelt said that either all or nothing seems to be the most logical argument. Samson agreed. Nelson said that based on his observation during FyrBal different groups of people come and go during the day but the one thing everyone comes back to is the fireworks. If there is no competition we will attract people from other communities which would be hard control.

Motion per Samson to deny Event Permit, Fyr Boom for EBC, seconded by Meacham, all ayes and motion carried.

10. Scott Barnes – 10249 Shannon Square – New Commercial Building – Concept Review Scott Barnes read from his letter to the Planning Committee. Barnes and his wife would like to announce their desire to build a new building to house their growing business, Door County Rock and Gem. Their current leased structure is insufficient for a modern business. Door

Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday March 23, 2021 Page 7 of 8

County Rock and Gem currently operates in a building that lacks any plumbing, no going to the bathroom for employees or customers, no basic sanitation or hand washing. The building has no heat. We are only able to operate 6 months per year. The building has no air-conditioning. Being that the majority of the structure is a greenhouse, it is extremely hot and uncomfortable for employees and customers when we are open. Square footage is proving to be small. Customers density (even pre-pandemic operations) is operating at an uncomfortable and crowded level. Our exterior-based mining attraction continues to grow and entertain families. We need to offer this activity in a larger area with greater social distancing.

They are proposing to design and build a new structure that would not be more than 28 feet tall and will be built on their 2-acre lot, in their front yard, in the North Ephraim Commercial District. The lot fire number is 2849 Shannon Square. The lot shares a property line with their motel, Ephraim Motel which his wife Julie has operated for 21 years. A structure on this lot currently houses the offices, online sales warehouse, rock shop for Door County Rock and Gem. This structure and enclosed porch measure roughly 1,716 sq. ft. The proposed building will look to build somewhere around 4,500 to 6,000 sq. ft. We would like to get an informal review of the proposed building. Builders are needing to know exteriors and the bank needs to know costs. Barnes is stuck without clear guidance on our exterior options. Barnes is presenting a building with clear agricultural roots that reflect the retail businesses in barns across the highway. Colors will lean towards natural earth tones. They desire to incorporate some masonry highlights in the building’s front. A building very similar to the general design and size we seek to build is located just outside Baileys Harbor. Door County Broadbands building on the corner of Highways F and EE near Beantown Camground. Barnes included he picture of the above- mentioned building. We are looking to change Door County Rock and Gem to a year-round retail store, adding to the shopping draw of McKeefry and Yeomans, and Island Lavender Farm. Barnes stated that he would like to utilize as much exterior structural steel siding and roofing due to the high lumber cost. They are prepared to do a half masonry wall around the base on the front of the building. They would like to put the effort into the front.

Fred Bridenhagen thanked the committee for their support. He pointed out that this business is very unique in Door County. It is such a family-oriented business. It attracts not only families with kids but also decorators and collectors. This business needs more space. This is the type of business that we do not want to have slipped to another town and we should get them everything they need based on our ordinances, concluded Bridenhagen.

Bristol stated that 10,000 sq. ft. is a maximum for a commercial building in the North Ephraim Commercial District.

Committee members had no issue with the proposed concept for a new building for Door County Rock and Gem. 11. New Business for next meeting: None 12. Adjournment Motion per Meacham to adjourn the Planning Committee Meeting at 8:50 PM, seconded by McClean, all ayes and motion carried.

Recorded by,

Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday March 23, 2021 Page 8 of 8

Andrea Collak- Clerk/Treasurer

VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM

FOUNDED 1853

Special Exception – Accessory Structure taller than 15’ Conditional Use – Accessory Structure sited in front of principal structure Brimi North LLC – 10349 North Orchard Tuesday, April 27, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Ephraim Village Hall – 9996 Water St.

NOTE: THIS MEETING OF WILL BE SIMULTANEOUSLY HELD VIA TELECONFERENCING. STAFF, COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC ARE WELCOME TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MANNER. SEATING AT THE VILLAGE HALL WILL OCCUR IN COMPLIANCE WITH SOCIAL DISTANCING RECOMMENDATIONS. AS SUCH BUILDING OCCUPANCY WILL BE LIMITED TO 10 VISITORS. TELECONFERENCING WILL BE AVAILABLE BY COMPUTER, PHONE, TABLET, OR DIAL IN. CONNECTION INFORMATION BELOW:

*Face Masks Are Required For Those Attending In Person

At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Ephraim Planning committee on Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 7:00 p.m., the committee will consider a special exception and conditional use request from Brimi North LLC relating to the construction of a new accessory structure on the property located at 10349 North Orchard. The garage as drawn is approximately 17’ in height and is set in front of the existing principal structure on the property.

Notice is being sent to all Ephraim property owners and neighboring municipalities within 300’. Comments may be made in person at the meeting or in writing to be received no later than 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 27, 2021. Written comments via email at bbristol@ephraim- wisconsin.com will also be accepted. All written comments must include name and address of commenting residents.

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/453428373

You can also dial in using your phone. United States: +1 (312) 757-3121 Access Code: 453-428-373

______Date _4-15-21______Andrea Collak, Clerk __x_Village offices __x_ Visitors’ Center ______x_ Post Office Megan Sawyer, Deputy Clerk __x_ Website ephraim-wisconsin.com __x_ Faxed to WDOR Radio

9331 SPRING ROAD, UNIT B-21 DAVID T GREENE + ASSOCIATES, LTD DAVID GREENE & BOB ZAKARAS, AIA FISHPH: CREEK,EMAIL: 920. [email protected] 54212 868. 5515 N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N - P R E L I M I N A R Y - M Y E R S - G A R A G E

N O T F O R

C O N S T R U C T I O N - P R E L I M I N A R Y -

I S S U A N C E :

NORTH

D A T E: 04. 06. 2021 SITE PLAN S I T E P L A N AS.00 1 1" = 20' (+/-) 9331 SPRING ROAD, UNIT B-21 DAVID T GREENE + ASSOCIATES, LTD DAVID GREENE & BOB ZAKARAS, AIA FISHPH: CREEK,EMAIL: 920. [email protected] 54212 868. 5515

S E C T I O N 6 1/4" = 1' M Y E R S - G A R A G E

N O R T H E L E V A T I O N E A S T E L E V A T I O N 4 5 1/4" = 1' 1/4" = 1'

N O T F O R

C O N S T R U C T I O N - P R E L I M I N A R Y -

I S S U A N C E :

PLAN NORTH

D A T E: 04. 06. 2021 PLAN, SECTION, ELEV. G A R A G E P L A N S O U T H E L E V A T I O N W E S T E L E V A T I O N A1.00 1 2 3 1/4" = 1' 1/4" = 1' 1/4" = 1' VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM

FOUNDED 1853

Special Exception – Residence taller than 28’ in height Richard Helser – 2788 Beachtree Ln Tuesday, April 27, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Ephraim Village Hall – 9996 Water St.

*Face Masks Are Required For Those Attending In Person

At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Ephraim Planning committee on Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 7:00 p.m., the committee will consider a special exception request from Richard Helser relating to the construction of a new single family residence on the property located at 2788 Beachtree Ln. The home as drawn is approximately 31’9” in height.

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/453428373

You can also dial in using your phone. United States: +1 (312) 757-3121 Access Code: 453-428-373

______Date _4-15-21______Andrea Collak, Clerk __x_Village offices __x_ Visitors’ Center ______x_ Post Office Megan Sawyer, Deputy Clerk __x_ Website ephraim-wisconsin.com __x_ Faxed to WDOR Radio

31'9"