Joint Plan Commission & Town Board — Agenda packet

JOINT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND TOWN BOARD MEETING September 2, 2026, 5:30 PM 820 E. Main Street, Eagle WI 53119 1. Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Minutes – Plan Commission consideration/approval of August 5, 2026, meeting minutes 4. Minutes – Town Board consideration/approval of August 5, 2026, meeting minutes 5. Public Comments - Please be advised per Section 19.84(2) Wis. Stats., information will be received from the public on only the items listed on the agenda. This public comment session shall last no longer than 15 minutes and individual presentations are limited to three minutes per speaker . There may be limited discussion on the information received, however, no action will be taken under public comment . 6. Site Plan/Plan of Operation for the Cherith. Two new businesses; a salon and aesthetics studio are proposed within an existing multitenant building at S102W34417 CTH LO. (Tax Key EGLT1828.985.002); Cherith Ravine, LLC (owner), Renee Gavers (applicant) Application 2026-22; Additional Information is available at: https://s.zoninghub.com/4Y2K7CZP4C A. Review and Discussion B. Plan Commission recommendation to Town Board C. Town Board action 7. Site Plan/Plan of Operation for The Godfrey Barn to operate a wedding barn/event venue at S90W35660 CTH NN. (Tax Key EGLT1818.999.041); Aaron Jackson (owner), Amber Carpenter (applicant) Application 2026-21; Additional Information is available at: https://s.zoninghub.com/0O1UGPXWQK A. Review and Discussion B. Plan Commission recommendation to Town Board C. Town Board action 8. Miscellaneous updates A. Violation updates B. Town Chairperson updates 9. Recommendation for future agendas (no packet materials) 10. Next meeting date: anticipated October 7, 2026 11. Adjournment by Planning and Zoning Commission 12. Adjournment by Town Board Posted by Town Clerk on ______________________ Please note, upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals through appropriate aids and services. For additional information or to request this service, contact Town of Eagle at 262-594-5800. Copies of the agenda and packet materials may be obtained before the start of the meeting by contacting the Town Hall at (262) 594-5800 during regular office hours. TOWN OF EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION HELD JOINTLY WITH THE TOWN BOARD August 5, 2026, 5:30PM Unapproved Minutes A Public Hearing was conducted by the Town of Eagle Plan Commission, on Wednesday, August 5, 2026, at 5:30 p.m., at the Eagle Town Hall, 820 East Main Street, Eagle, WI, 53119, to consider a request by the Town of Eagle to amend the Town of Eagle’s Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) map adopted in 2009, as follows: Amend the Town’s CDP Plan map for the following properties: EGLT 1732.999.001 (part of tax parcel east of HWY 59) from the Industrial category to the Suburban Residential I category (3+ acres per dwelling unit), consisting of approximately 210 acres to be amended, located in the NW ¼, NE ¼, SW ¼, and SE ¼ of Section 1, T5N, R17E, Town of Eagle; EGLT 1729.997.003 from the Rural Residential I category (3+ acres per dwelling unit) to the Suburban Residential II category (1.5+ acres per dwelling unit), consisting of approximately 49 acres to be amended, located in the NE ¼ of Section 1, T5N, R17E, Town of Eagle; EGLT 1829.999 from the Rural Residential I category (3+ acres per dwelling unit) to the Suburban Residential II category (1.5+ acres per dwelling unit), consisting of approximately 193 acres to be amended, located in the NE ¼ and the E ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 26, T5N, R17E, Town of Eagle; and EGLT 1835.999.001 from the Rural Residential I category (3+ acres per dwelling unit) to the Suburban Residential II category (1.5+ acres per dwelling unit), consisting of approximately 66 acres to be amended, located in the E ½ of the SW ¼ and the W 25 acres of the SE ¼ of Section 27, T5N, R17E, Town of Eagle Planner Heermans explained that the town adopted a land use plan in 2009. There are provisions that allow for the code to be amended over time. A year or two ago the town lost some properties to annexation. A committee was formed and they looked at the entirety of Eagle and determined four parcels that were identified with the potential to be annexed to a village. The committee came up with some recommendations. The goal was to promote the rural aesthetic of the town while also allowing for responsible development. Heermans wanted to make it clear that there is no development proposed at this time; the committee felt that they were being proactive in trying to keep the properties in the town without having them annexed to another municipality. Once that happens the Town has no control over it. The plan is providing for a transition from what are smaller lot sizes and typically higher densities. This is strictly about density, which dictates the overall number of lots, not lot size. The land use plan is simply density. They are two separate things. Lot sizes are not being changed. In order to do that, someone would need to apply for a rezone. There has been no proposal at this point. Supervisor Kugel sited some accusations on social media and for clarification, asked if any of these property owners or any developers contacted the planner asking for these changes. Heermans replied no, there is one lot for sale, but any inquiries were related to single family homes. Commissioner Samuels spoke on the original 2009 land use plan, stating the two recently annexed properties were to be a transitional space, knowing that they were going to be sold and that they were two prime development pieces. Developers came forward with proposals to the Town that fit that transition that would have been much lower density than what is going to happen there now. It had benefits that the town could have used but now have lost that ability. Commissioner Bendler spoke hoping the public understands that villages have power over the townships. If the Town accepts a conceptual plan, it can work with the builder. The recently annexed property is going to have more homes on it than if it had stayed in the town The best approach is to secure the Town’s borders to preserve the tax base and keep the Town as rural as possible. Diane Knauer in the audience wanted to point out that villages do not approach the property owners to annex land. The landowner initiates the process, and the builders will go to the villages on behalf of the landowner. The public hearing was opened at 5:45. Stephan Muth asked about the village-owned 36 acres where the wells are and if they can annex off of that. He states he has a newspaper article that says they can. Muth also brought up some land zoned industrial. Initially it was thought it would be a good place for industry because of the railroad tracks there. If that is taken away and made residential where is the plan here for more industrial? The industrial park is almost full. Diane Knauer spoke that the committee discussed the industrial property Muth referred to. A prior owner was going to try to put industry there, however the state would not allow him access off of Highway 59 so he would have had to have access off of Sprague Road. The intersection of 59 and Sprague is not favorable for semi-trucks. The railroad also would not allow the owner to put railroad stops in that particular location. Commissioner Samuels added that the property’s industrial designation does not appear practical because the current zoning allows business and mixed -use uses, not industrial zoning, and the site has significant access limitations. Access from Highway 59 has been denied, the railroad will not permit a spur or expanded crossing access, and the property currently can only be accessed for agricultural purposes. Matt Kube questioned if there is any impact from the DNR on the additional wells that may affect the springs that are in the Kettle Moraine. Planner Heermans answered that anytime there is a subdivision development with wells going in, Waukesha County Environmental Health is involved. DNR gets involved; they are part of any subdivision review process. Commissioner Samuels stated that the DNR maintains a wetlands map that applies regardless of the Town’s zoning designations. The map identifies wetlands, springs, marshlands, and other protected natural areas, and any proposed work in those areas requires DNR approval. He explained that wells also require permits through Waukesha County, and applicable regulations determine what is allowed. Using the Doman properties as an example, he noted that developers submit proposals to Waukesha County and, in some cases, the state and DNR for review. Those agencies decide what can and cannot be done, outside of the Town’s control. Because the Doman properties are now in the village and will be served by municipal water, some protections and review requirements related to private wells may not apply. Samuels added that he did not know whether the municipal water system could support the properties for the next 50 years. James Varcoe thanked the commission for the explanation as he did not understand the connection between annexation, zoning, and the strategy behind it. Given the changes that are proposed, what is to prevent a developer or builder coming to a landowner after these changes are made? Commissioner Samuels answered that, realistically, there is little the Town can do to prevent a landowner from asking to be annexed into a village if approached by a developer. The Town could object, but doing so would likely result in costly litigation that the Town would probably lose. Samuels explained that the intent is to make development within the Town more appealing than annexation. He noted that prior developers had been willing to consider plans that fit a 1.5 -acre density, which would have resulted in less intensive development than what is now expected after annexation. Farms under discussion are in circumstances similar to the Doman farm several years ago. One is owned by a last-generation farmer with no heirs interested in continuing the operation, and the others are no longer actively farmed by the owners but are leased to others. As a result, the properties may be viewed as assets for an estate or retirement plan. Chairperson Mommaerts addressed comments made on social media questioning why the Town does not reach out to builders or developers. She stated that she has personally met with developers and asked them to come to the Town first so the Town can work with them and try to keep future development within the Town rather than having land annexed into the village. Mommaerts explained that the Town has faced lawsuits related to Planning and Zoning matters over the past several years, which has placed the Town in a difficult position. She said the current Board and Commissioners are working to become better informed and avoid repeating those mistakes. Mommaerts stated that the Town’s goal is to protect its borders, preserve its tax base, and remain as rural as possible. She said the Doman property owner had initially come to the Town, and she believed the land could have remained in the Town if a 1.5-acre density had been accepted. Because that did not happen, the property was lost to annexation. Mommaerts said she is trying to keep communication open with developers and farmers. She believes some developers would prefer to remain in the Town because properties in the Town of Eagle are marketable, and many people want to live there. Her goal is to use the proposed changes to strengthen those conversations, reduce the likelihood that developers would go directly to the village, and help preserve the remaining farmland and rural character of the Town. Supervisor Domagalski stated while gathering signatures for nomination paperwork, many residents believed Eagle had always required a three-acre minimum for homes. He said he knew that was not the case because he owned a two-acre property when he first moved to Eagle in 1994. He also described purchasing a 48-acre property after confirming with the Town that he could build on it, only to later be told during the building permit process that the land was too productive as farmland to permit construction, which created difficulties for him. His concern grew while watching the prior Planning and Zoning Commission address the Doman Farm subdivision. He does not want Eagle to become dominated by subdivisions. The Town may once have had the opportunity for approximately 90 homes on that parcel, the annexation could now result in 120 to 130 homes, with smaller lots, more vehicles, and increased traffic. He explained that he was initially opposed to the proposed changes because he did not fully understand them, but he has learned more through the committee process. His main goal in joining the committee was to keep land from leaving the Town so that the Town can retain control over its future. He acknowledged that developers may approach landowners directly and that landowners may seek annexation into the village if they believe they can receive more money. In his view, the prior approach focused too much on individual farms and not enough on the broader development consequences. He believes the previous Planning and Zoning Commission meant well but did not fully consider what could happen in the end. He concluded by saying that he wants land to remain in the Town of Eagle because he loves the community. A question was raised about the lot sizes in older subdivisions. Chairperson Mommaerts answered that many existing subdivisions have lots smaller than one acre. Once smaller-lot subdivisions or annexations are approve d, those decisions cannot be reversed and create future annexation opportunities for adjoining farmland. Commissioner Samuels explained that the concept behind the future land use plan is to place the highest residential density closest to the villages, with density decreasing as properties get farther away. Erin Severson raised the question whether there is any thought about making clear delineation of what the Town’s assets are. For instance, if specific farms are assets, can it be put in the comprehensive plan to protect those as historical or cultural aspects of the community. That way the defense would be protecting those aspects versus density. Chairperson Mommaerts explained that efforts to protect farmland must also account for landowner rights and the ownership value of the property. Farmland may be worth approximately $10,000 per acre for agricultural use but could sell for about $25,000 per acre for development. The Town must avoid interfering with a farmer’s ability to sell land or with any related purchase contract, as doing so could expose the Town to claims of tortious interference. Planner Heermans added there are properties in Farmland Preservation that are protected. Pat Merkt asked if the state overrides the Town to cut a road to a piece of land he has on Highway 59. The board and commissioners answered that it would be the state. Chairperson Mommaerts explained that road access and driveway spacing are important safety concerns. She stated that a road cannot safely accommodate numerous individual driveways, and that state and county agencies often limit the number of access points allowed on major roads. Supervisor Hajewski stated that, as the person who runs Keep Eagle Wisconsin Rural, he opposes large subdivision- style development in the Town of Eagle, though he does not object to individual homes or CSM splits. He said he understands the strategy behind the proposed changes but believes it has not been effective because the Doman Farms and Bielinski projects still sought annexation through the Village of Eagle despite the Town’s efforts. He supports changing the industrial area to residential use but opposes the other proposed changes. Diana Varcoe thanked the Commission and Board for the information provided, stating that the discussion helped clarify the issues and would continue to follow the matter closely. Chairperson Mommaerts encouraged residents to contact Board or Commission members with questions and said she would be willing to meet individually to explain the issues, as she and others had done after the Doman property discussion. She noted that understanding the process takes time and education. Supervisor Kugel thanked those in attendance for coming to the meeting to listen, learn, and receive information directly rather than relying on social media. Mommaerts read an emailed comment from Kelly Lang, who was unable to attend. Lang opposed the three proposed amendments changing parcels from Rural Residential to Suburban Residential. She supported changing the industrial parcel to a three -acre residential designation only if the area could be protected from annexation; otherwise, she supported keeping it industrial. Lang stated that the three -acre rural residential designation better reflects the Town of Eagle’s rural character and noted concerns about ho rse-related ordinance limits on parcels under three acres, the Town’s infrastructure and staffing capacity for higher-density neighborhoods, possible tax impacts, and the desire to avoid development patterns similar to surrounding villages. She stated that, absent a legal requirement to change the plan, she supports retaining the rural residential designations. The public hearing was closed at 6:28pm. Immediately after the above public hearing another public hearing was held to consider the Conditional Use request (2026-19) of Ryan Bendler (owner) to permit small scale manufacturing of auto parts within the existing multi-tenant building. The subject property is described as Lot 2 of Certified Survey Map No. 12257, located in part of the NW ¼ of Section 23, T5N, R17 E, Town of Eagle. More specifically, the property is located on the west side of Godfrey Lane, south of Henry Lane, also known as Tax Key No. EGLT 1818.999.058. The public hearing was opened at 6:29pm. Commissioner Bendler recused himself from the room and returned after the public hearing. Planner Slotty gave an overview that it is a 1.5-acre property located on the west side of the business park. It currently contains a multi-tenant commercial and industrial building. The current zoning is mixed business. The petitioner, who is also the owner of the property, is proposing to utilize a portion of the building, which is 3,200 square feet, contains a half bathroom and an overhead door, for a small automotive part manufacturing company. No input was received from the public. The public hearing was closed at 6:34. Chairperson Mommaerts called the meeting to order at 6:34pm and led with the Pledge of Allegiance. C. Mommaerts, R. Hajewski, D. Radtke, F. Lang, D. Domagalski, T. Samuels, R. Kugel, and M. Bendler were present. R. Kugel was absent. Also in attendance was Attorney Remzy Bitar and Planners Kassie Slotty and Jacob Heemans. Consideration and Approval of Minutes: Plan Commission motion by Samuels, seconded by Radtke to approve the meeting minutes of June 3, 2026, as presented. Motion carried 6-0. Town Board motion by Kugel, seconded by Lang to approve the meeting minutes of June 3, 2026, as presented. Motion carried 5-0. Mommaerts opened the meeting for public comment. Erin Severson spoke on agenda item 10, Jacks Bay Road drainage. The driveway of a property adjacent to hers is draining across the road and into her and her neighbor’s driveway. Amendments to the Town of Eagle’s Comprehensive Development Plan Plan Commission motion by Samuels to recommend approval of the future Land Use Plan as presented. Seconded by Bendler. Motion carried 6-0. Town Board motion by Domagalski to accept the recommendation. Seconded by Kugel. Motion carried 4-1 (Hajewski). Conditional Use request for Ryan’s Diesel Service to operate a small parts manufacturing business in the existing building at W356S8950 Godfrey Ln. (Tax Key EGLT1818.999.058); Godfrey Lane Properties, LLC (owner), Ryan Bendler (applicant) Application 2026-19. Commissioner Bendler recused himself from this and the two subsequent agenda items. Plan Commission motion by Samuels to recommend approval of the conditional use and site plan and plan of operations as presented. Second by Domagalski. Motion carried 5-0. Town Board motion by Kugel to approve the recommendation of the Plan Commission. Second by Lang. Motion carried 5-0. Site Plan/Plan of Operation for Ryan’s Diesel Service to operate a small parts manufacturing business in the existing building at W356S8950 Godfrey Ln. (Tax Key EGLT1818.999.058); Godfrey Lane Properties, LLC (owner), Ryan Bendler (applicant) Application 2026-20 Plan Commission motion by Radtke to recommend the approval of the site plan for Ryan's Diesel Service to operate as a small parts manufacturing business in the existing building on Godfrey Lane. Second by Kugel. Motion carried 5-0. Town Board motion by Mommaerts to accept the Planning Commission recommendation in reference to Ryan's Diesel to operate a small manufacturing business on Godfrey Lane. Second by Domagalski. Motion carried 5-0. Change of Topography request to raise the grade at a commercial property on Henry Ln (Tax Key EGLT1818.999.032) to accommodate a future building; Godfrey Lane Properties 2, LLC (owner), Ryan Bendler (applicant) Application 2026-16. Planner Slotty noted a topography permit is required per the Town of Eagle Zoning Code for certain situations. The applicant is proposing to level out the property so the maximum amount of fill would be eight feet in the center of the property. The vegetation that is there will be removed. There are no hydric indicators per DNR's surface water data viewer. The applicant has applied for a notice of intent to grade from the DNR. Tim Lynch (engineer) will be reviewing the grading plan. Plan Commission motion by Kugel to accept the recommendation for a change of topography request at Tax Key EGLT 1818.999.032 to accommodate future building Godfrey Lane Property 2 LLC, Ryan Bendler, applicant, with the stated conditions in the staff report. Seconded by Samuels. Motion carried 5-0. Town Board motion by Mommaerts to accept the recommendation from the Planning Commission in reference the change of topography to the Godfrey Lane Property, owner Ryan Bendler. Second by Hajewski. In further discussion, the decision criteria numbered one through seventeen in the staff report were reviewed. Motion carried 5-0. Discussion/possible action regarding Jacks Bay Road runoff: Planner Heermans explained there is a meeting with the county (Shoreland Zoning) on Friday to discuss construction on a specific property that may be facilitating some of the issues, however the road construction itself is also adding water to the adjacent property. Supervisor Kugel added that he and a prior public works superintendent had discussed it at length; the contours and pitches need to be reviewed by the Town’s engineer to determine the best course of action. Violation updates: The list of violations provided by the planner was reviewed. Chairperson Updates: Mommaerts had nothing further to report. There were no recommendations for future agenda items. Next meeting: Wednesday September 2, 2026, at 5:30PM. It will be held jointly with the Town Board. Plan Commission motion to adjourn was made by Samuels and seconded by Bendler. All in favor. Plan Commission adjourned at 7:26pm. Town Board motion to adjourn was made by Kugel and seconded by Hajewski. All in favor. Town Board adjourned at 7:26pm. Respectfully submitted, Mercia Christian, Clerk STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SITE PLAN/PLAN OF OPERATION Date: September 2, 2026 To: Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Board Owner: Cherith Ravine, LLC, Renee Gavers (applicant) Location: S102W34417 CTH LO, Tax Key EGLT1828.985.002 Jurisdiction: This property is located entirely within Waukesha County Shoreland zoning jurisdiction. Zoning Classification(s): B-2 Local Business, EC Environmental Corridor, C-1 Floodplain/Wetland Overlay Existing Use(s): Food service, office space, laundromat Proposed Use: Site Plan, Plan of Operation review for new tenants (hair salon, aesthetician) within an existing multi-tenant space. Application(s): 2026-22 Site Plan/Plan of Operation; https://s.zoninghub.com/4Y2K7CZP4C Staff Analysis The subject property is approximately 1.8 acres in size and is located on the southwest corner of CTH E and CTH LO. The property contains a residence and a multi-tenant building which has had several different uses, including a bakery, bar/restaurant, professional office and laundromat. Jericho Creek bisects the property on the west side with the land immediately adjacent to the creek designated primarily as floodplain. The petitioner is proposing to occupy two (2) of the existing tenant spaces within the existing multi-tenant building. Unit A will be occupied by a beauty salon, Taleah’s Beauty Salon. Unit B will be occupied by an aesthetician, CC Aesthetics. The use of Unit C has yet to be determined. It will either be utilized as a laundr omat (existing use) or repurposed as an additional tenant space. The future use of the Unit C will require additional approvals from the Town and County. The property is accessed via CTH LO and no changes to site access are proposed. There is an existing free standing sign which is proposed to be refaced. Hours of Operation: Taleah’s Beauty Salon Tuesday, 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Wednesday 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. CC Aesthetics Monday/Wednesday/Thursday, 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Both proposed uses are permitted within the B-2 Local Business District. Page 2 Decision criteria: The Town Plan Commission and Town Board must consider the following factors: 1. Effects of the project on traffic safety and efficiency and pedestrian circulation, both on -site and off site; 2. Effects of the project on the natural environment; 3. Effects of the project on surrounding properties, including operational considerations relating to hours of operation and creation of potential nuisances; 4. Compliance with the site design principles and architectural standards enumerated in Division 8 of Article 7 ; 5. Compliance with other applicable requirements in this chapter ; and, 6. Any other factor that relates to the purposes of this chapter as set forth in s. 500.05 or as allowed by state Alaw. Process: The Plan Commission makes a recommendation to the Town Board for the Site Plan/Plan of Operation. The Town Board makes the final decision. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends conditional approval of the Site Plan/Plan of Operation subject to the following conditions: 1. If any structural changes are proposed, p rior to any construction taking place, a Zoning Permit and Building Permit must be issued by the Town Planner and Town Building Inspector. 2. The remaining vacant tenant space (laundromat) requires a separate Site Plan/Plan of Operation approval. 3. A Preliminary Site Evaluation (PSE) shall be o btained from Waukesha Coun ty Environmental Health for the change in use, prior to Site Plan/Plan of Operation permit issuance. 4. Site lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Planner . Any outdoor lighting shall be downcast, and shall not create a nuisance for neighboring property owners or CTH E/LO. 5. The dumpster area shall be shown on the site plan. The dumpster(s) shall be completely enclosed, or screened from the neighboring properties. 6. Documentation shall be submitted to the Town Planner that all required Federal, State, County, or local licenses and permits have been obtained. State licenses for the salon and aesthetician have been provided. 7. All proposed signage, as applicable, shall be approved by the Building Inspector. 8. Documentation shall be submitted to the Town Planner that the local Fire Inspector has inspected the building for compliance with all local fire codes, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 9. Documentation shall be submitted to the Town Planner that the Town Building Inspector has completed a thorough inspection of the building for compliance with all building codes, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. If state approved plans are required, a copy of said plans shall be submitted to the Town Planner and Building Inspector for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 10. All activities on the subject property herein may not in any way become a nuisance by reason of appearance, noise, dust, smoke, illumination, odor or any other similar factor. 11. An up-to-date Site Plan/Plan of Operation must be on file, at all times, with the Town of Eagle. 12. The Town reserve the right to review any condition imposed as part of the Conditional Use and/or Site Plan/Plan of Operation if said use becomes a problem in the area. The Town Plan Commission may modify, change, delete, add, etc. any conditions which they feel may be reasonable to allow this use and ensure it does not become detrimental to the surrounding area. Page 3 13. Professional Fees. The petitioner shall, on demand, reimburse the Town of Eagle for all costs and expenses of any type that the Town incurs in connection with this conditional use, including the cost of professional services incurred by the Town (including engineering, legal, planning and other consulting fees) for the review and preparation of required documents or attendance at meetings or other related professional services for this application, as well as to enforce the conditions in this conditional approval due to a v iolation of these conditions. 14. Payment of Charges. Any unpaid bills owed to the Town of Eagle by the subject property owner or his or her tenants, operators or occupants, or agents, for reimbursement of professional fees (as described above); or for personal property taxes; or for real property taxes; or for licenses, permit fees or any other fees owed to the Town; shall be placed upon the tax roll for the Subject Property if not paid within 30 days of the billing by the Town, pursuant to Section 66.0627, Wisconsin Statutes. Such unpaid bills also constit ute a breach of the requirements of this conditional approval that is subject to all remedies available to the Town, including possible cause for termination of the conditional approval. As conditioned, the petitioner will be able to utilize the existing multi-tenant building for a permitted use(s). Recommended Motion: I make a motion to approve the request in accordance with the staff report with the conditions and reasons stated in the staff report. Respectfully submitted, Jacob Heermans Town Planner Attachments Exhibit A – Site Plan N:\PRKANDLU\Planning and Zoning\Community Assistance\T EAGLE\STAFF REPORTS AND PROJECTS\2026\2026-22 The Cherith_Gavers\Staff Report The Cherith.docx STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SITE PLAN/PLAN OF OPERATION Date: September 2, 2026 To: Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Board Owner: Aaron Jackson, Amber Carpenter (applicant) Location: S90W35660 CTH NN, Tax Key EGLT1818.999.041 Jurisdiction: This property is located entirely within the Town’s zoning jurisdiction. Zoning Classification: B-4 Mixed Business. Existing Use(s): Single-family residence, barn, outbuildings Proposed Use: Site Plan, Plan of Operation review to operate a wedding barn/event space Application(s): 2026-21 Site Plan/Plan of Operation; https://s.zoninghub.com/0O1UGPXWQK Staff Analysis The subject property is 3.2 acres in size and is located on CTH NN, just west of Godfrey Ln. The property, part of the former 100-acre Valley View Dairy Farm which was subdivided from the larger land holdings in 2002, with the remaining lands becoming the Town of Eagle Business Park. The property contains a single-family residence, barn, and several outbuildings. The petitioners are proposing to operate a wedding barn/event space. The property is currently accessed via a driveway to CTH NN, and the current access is proposed to remain. Waukesha County DPW is being consulted as to whether any roadway and/or driveway improvements are required for the change in use. The existing single - family home is occupied by the petitioner and will remain. Parking is proposed on the northwest corner of the property and is proposed to be illuminated. An ADA accessible parking area is proposed north of the house, and west of the barn. A dumpster for waste generated from the property is proposed along the north lot line. There are two (2) large patio areas, one on the north side, and one on the south side of the barn, which will be utilized for ceremonies, cocktail hours and yard games. With the exception of ceremonies or social hours, all music, either live or amplified, will be contained within the barn. The requested hours of operation are: Monday – Thursday, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Friday – Saturday, from 9:00 a.m. to midnight Sunday, from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Peak event season runs from May to October, with limited events outside of this timeframe. The petitioner anticipates being able to accommodate a maximum of 150 guests, per event, which are staffed by 2 -3 part-time event coordinators. All food will be catered and no on-site food preparation will occur. Portable restroom trailers will be utilized for sanitary facilities, and no permanent sanitary facilities are proposed at this time. The proposed wedding barn/event space meets the requirements of the B-4 District. Page 2 Decision criteria: The Town Plan Commission and Town Board must consider the following factors: 1. Effects of the project on traffic safety and efficiency and pedestrian circulation, both on -site and off site; 2. Effects of the project on the natural environment; 3. Effects of the project on surrounding properties, including operational considerations relating to hours of operation and creation of potential nuisances; 4. Compliance with the site design principles and architectural standards enumerated in Division 8 of Article 7 ; 5. Compliance with other applicable requirements in this chapter ; and, 6. Any other factor that relates to the purposes of this chapter as set forth in s. 500.05 or as allowed by state Alaw. Process: The Plan Commission makes a recommendation to the Town Board for the Site Plan/Plan of Operation. The Town Board makes the final decision. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends conditional approval of the Site Plan/Plan of Operation to operate a wedding barn/event space subject to the following conditions: 1. If any structural changes are proposed, p rior to any construction taking place, a Zoning Permit and Building Permit must be issued by the Town Planner and Town Building Inspector. 2. Prior to the issuance of the Site Plan/Plan of Operation , the Waukesha County Department of Public Works must approve the change in use and shall determine if any access and/or roadway improvements to C.T.H. “NN” are required. 3. Site lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Planner . Any outdoor lighting shall be downcast, and shall not create a nuisance for neighboring property owners or CTH NN. Use of lighting for the parking area and any signage is limited to one hour beyond the authorized hours of operation. 4. Absolutely no parking shall be allowed on CTH NN. 5. The Town shall review the CU no later than November of each year, starting in 2027 and make a determination if said use shall continue for the subsequent event season or cease operation. At that time, any or all conditions of approval may be modified, changed, added or deleted at the discretion of the Town Plan Commission without the necessity of a new public hearing. The Town shall make their determination based upon compliance with the Site Plan/Plan of Operation conditions. 6. The dumpster area shall be completely enclosed, or screened from the neighboring properties. 7. A detailed list of events for ) for the upcoming year (event season) shall be prepared and submitted to the Town Planner no later than April of each year . Each time a new event is added, an updated list shall be provided to the Town Planner or Town Clerk at least ten (10) days prior to said event. 8. Live/amplified music is allowed until 9:00 p.m. during the week and 10:00 p.m. on weekends (Friday and Saturday), but in no case shall any music be piped, amplified or permitted outside of the structure. All windows and overhead doors, except doors used for patrons to enter and exit the building, shall remain closed as long as any music is being played in the barn/premises. All events shall end no later than 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 11:00 p.m. on weekends. Sound shall not exceed 55 decibels at the property lines. Should noise cause problems in the neighborhood the Town and reserves the right to further restrict music and hours of operation. 9. A Liquor License shall be approved by the Town Board for the barn, prior to serving any alcoholic beverages, except if a caterer is legally licensed to serve alcohol (if applicable). 10. All serving of alcoholic beverages shall cease at least one -half (1/2) hour prior to an event ending. All appropriate liquor licenses and caterers’ license will be required prior to each event taking place, where applicable. Page 3 11. No temporary tents, canvas, plastic, etc. may be erected on the site without prior approval by the Town Plan Commission. The Town and County reserve the right to limit the number of events that a tent may be erected. 12. If fireworks are proposed in conjunction with an event, a permit shall be obtained from the Fire Chief, prior to the event taking place. All requirements of Town of Eagle Ordinance No. 21 -02 shall be substantially complied with. 13. No more than 150 guests shall be allowed at any one time in the barn and on the premises without prior Town approval. The Town Building Inspector and/or the local fire department shall confirm the maximum occupancy of the structures and any more restrictive number imposed by either entity shall prevail if lower than 150 persons. 14. Absolutely no outside storage of event items (tables, chairs, etc.) shall be permitted. 15. As proposed, the number of portable restrooms provided shall be consistent with the number of bathrooms required per industry standards . All portable restrooms must be ADA accessible. Any future permanent bathrooms must comply with ADA accessibility and meet local building code. In addition, depending on the availability of fixed plumbing, the Waukesha County Environmental Health Division Staff shall determine if a permanent wash station is required. If a permanent wash station is to be required , the sink shall contain a single basin, as the sink can only be used for handw ashing purposes and must be installed prior to the first event being held. If portable wash stations are to be used, they must be heated hand wash sinks with a booster. 16. The portable restrooms shall be pumped routinely, in line with Waukesha County Environmental Health standards. 17. A wash sink, either permanent or portable, must be available on -site for all catered events. 18. The location of all portable restrooms shall be indicated on the Site Plan. Portable restrooms must be property screened from the road and neighboring properties. 19. Documentation shall be submitted to the Town Planner that all required Federal, State, County, or local licenses and permits have been obtained, including a new liquor license approved by the Town Board. 20. No onsite preparation of food is proposed or permitted herein. 21. All proposed signage, as applicable, shall be approved by the Building Inspector. 22. Prior to the issuance of the Site Plan/Plan of Operation, the Town Planner must be notified by the Town Engineer that the development meets all provisions of the Storm Water Management Ordinance for the Town of Eagle, as applicable. 23. Documentation shall be submitted to the Town Planner that the local Fire Inspector has reviewed the site plan and inspected the building for compliance with all local fire codes, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 24. Documentation shall be submitted to the Town Planner that the Town Building Inspector has completed a thorough inspection of the building for compliance with all building codes, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. If state approved plans are required, a copy of said plans shall be submitted to the Town Planner and Building Inspector for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 25. All activities on the subject property herein may not in any way become a nuisance by reason of appearance, noise, dust, smoke, illumination, odor or any other similar factor. 26. An up-to-date Site Plan/Plan of Operation must be on file, at all times, with the Town of Eagle. 27. The Town reserves the right to review any condition imposed as part of the Conditional Use and/or Site Plan/Plan of Operation if said use becomes a problem in the area. The Town Plan Commission may modify, change, delete, add, etc. any conditions which they feel may be rea sonable to allow this use and ensure it does not become detrimental to the surrounding area. Page 4 28. Professional Fees. The petitioner shall, on demand, reimburse the Town of Eagle for all costs and expenses of any type that the Town incurs in connection with this conditional use, including the cost of professional services incurred by the Town (including engineering, legal, planning and other consulting fees) for the review and preparation of required documents or attendance at meetings or other related professional services for this application, as well as to enforce the conditions in this conditional approval due to a v iolation of these conditions. 29. Payment of Charges. Any unpaid bills owed to the Town of Eagle by the subject property owner or his or her tenants, operators or occupants, or agents, for reimbursement of professional fees (as described above); or for personal property taxes; or for real property taxes; or for licenses, permit fees or any other fees owed to the Town; shall be placed upon the tax roll for the Subject Property if not paid within 30 days of the billing by the Town, pursuant to Section 66.0627, Wisconsin Statutes. Such unpaid bills also constit ute a breach of the requirements of this conditional approval that is subject to all remedies available to the Town, including possible cause for termination of the conditional approval. As conditioned, the petitioners will be able to utilize the existing improvements to operate a wedding barn/event venue, which is a permitted use within the B-4 District, while still giving consideration to the adjacent land owners. Recommended Motion: I make a motion to approve the request in accordance with the staff report with the conditions and reasons stated in the staff report. Respectfully submitted, Jacob Heermans Town Planner Attachments Exhibit A – Site Plan N:\PRKANDLU\Planning and Zoning\Community Assistance\T EAGLE\STAFF REPORTS AND PROJECTS\2026\2026-21 The Godfrey Barn\Staff Report The Godfrey Barn.docx Page 1 of 7 PENDING EAGLE ZONING VIOLATIONS TOWN AND COUNTY VIOLATIONS This list is for informational purposes only and no discussion or action will be taken on these matters. Italics indicates new information since last update. TOWN VIOLATIONS Tom Reynolds, S70W35196 TOWNSHIP ROAD X 8/21/24: RL conducted site visit from the road. Met with CM and SJ to discuss the history of the property and next steps. It was identified that the building permit had expired. Violations appear to include, at a minimum, business without permits (commercial greenhouse/food processing), disrepair of building (greenhouse) and expired permits. SJ stated that he will try to make contact with the owner first. 9/24/24: It was relayed to RL that at least two attempts have been made by SJ to contact the owner by site inspection. RL will consult with Town Atty to discuss next steps. 11/7/24: Met SJ and owner on property. Owner gave a tour and explained the farming operation (Alchemy Acres). it runs like a co-op where people come and pick up their order or they will deliver it. It's all local people. He grows and sells, fresh produce and modifies some of it by fermenting it. He creates dried herbs and juices produce. He does not participate in any markets. He does not sell mead and understood he was denied that permit. He does have agricultural equipment lying around the property (soil steamer, pallets, wheelbarrows). He was in the middle of siding the addition and there were construction materials that needed to be cleaned up. Has chickens and 4 hoop houses near the house, + approximately 10 hoop houses out in the field. He is there on T/R/S and some Sundays. Typically, no one there on M/W/F. When asked about mowing around the fields, he indicated that it would disrupt the habitat of inspects that would turn to feeding on the crops. Chickens on site. Was willing to put up vegetative screening around the property near the roads but wants to make sure it's beneficial to his operation. The property is currently being transferred to an LLC where it will be employee-owned. 11/21/24 RL spoke with WC Environmental Health Division (EHD). They are trying to contact the owner to better understand what types of products are being made. No licensing has been given. RL needs to review ordinance and provide owner with what options might be available. May need to involved Town Atty. 1/10/25 Reviewed zoning code for possible options for owner. Can apply for a Greenhouse CU and can continue to grow produce on site. However, there does not appear to be a path in the code to support accessory agricultural uses such a production of teas, juices, herbs, etc. Junk, debris, general yard property maintenance must be explored by the Building Inspector. 1/27/2025 RL has received information from EHD that they do not appear to have enough proof to post a Cease and Desist order, but will be sending a letter reminding property owner of proper permitting. RL and EHD are drafting separate letters regarding the applicable violations to achieve voluntary compliance. 2/21/25 No update. Early March 2025: Environmental Health Division send letter to property owner notifying him that food processing without proper food grade protection or proper state and local licensing is a violation of state codes. 4/7/25 Planner notified of someone living in a camper on site. 4/16/25 Planner drove by property. Camper had been removed. Some building materials removed. Approximately 20 greenhouses present. 6/6/25 Letter with attachment of code references and application sent to property owner via mail and email, requesting the property be brought into compliance with town ordinances, including the property maintenance code and the zoning code. Applications were requested by July 1 and permission to re-inspect the property was requested to be granted by June 25, 2025. 6/26/25 Staff received an email from the property owner regarding the letter noted above. 10/23/25 Staff met with Mr. Reynold’s on his Road X property, but was not given permission to inspect. Inspected property from the driveway, ROW, and neighboring property and observed sheep. 11/5/25 Joint meeting held at the Town Hall to discuss the violation with Mr. Reynolds and to hear neighbor concerns. 11/17/25 Town BI inspected Mr. Reynold’s property. Structure which lacks an active Building Permit has been improved, however, no progress has been made on the remainder of the property/violations. Page 2 of 7 11/19/25 Conference call with Planner, Town Chair and Waukesha County Planning Manager to discuss strategy. Planner will send a letter prior to end of the week clearly outlining the violations and establishing a short window in which to gain compliance. Failure to do so will result in citations and likely a lawsuit. 12/8/25 Violation letter drafted. Staff is seeking input from Environmental Health on additional violations. 12/15/25 Meeting with Waukesha County Environmental Health staff to discuss violation and possible health code violations. 12/18/25 A violation letter was sent to the property owner establishing a January 5, 2026, deadline for compliance. 1/5/26 Property owner responded to violation letter, refuting that the property is in violation. 1/7/26 Discussed the violation at the joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Board. Town Board will discuss before bringing it back for action in February. 2/4/26 Anticipated Town Board Action 2/27/26 Staff met with legal counsel and is continuing to collect information and formulate next steps. 4/22/26 Staff is determining how to move forward with issuing citations and will reach out to the town and town atty when ready to issue. 5/6/26 Staff obtained citation book and town information. Will begin working on citation issuance. 6/17/26 Staff met with Town Attorney and team and they will be pursuing legal action. 8/25/26 Pending legal action (Pending, JH/KS) COUNTY VIOLATIONS Jeffrey and Heather Sorenson, W345 S10503 CTH E Constructed a fence within the shore setback area 10/28/24 Complaint received about a fence that had been constructed around the property within the shore setback area. 11/19/24 Need to contact property owner(s) to schedule a site inspection. 12/10/24 Contacted owners to schedule an inspection. 1/28/25 No response from owners. Need to follow up to schedule inspection and/or require removal. 02/07/25 Violation reassigned to AT. Request to Inspect letter sent 02/10/25. 02/18/25 Owner (Heather Sorensen) called AT and stated fence was placed as a way to prevent neighbor's dog from crossing into property (dog had previously bit their child). Wants to know what can be done to keep the fence. Other neighbors are their cousins and they love having the fence. Was not aware a fence required a permit. AT will conduct site visit on 02/25/25. 02/25/25 Site visit showed white fence along southern lot line. Property also had sections of black metal "decorative" fencing (mostly along the southeast property line near retaining wall), more panels of this fencing are stacked off to one side. Tall black fence along SW corner of home (not permitted in the 2021 addition ZP). Currently reviewing the approved landscaping plan to confirm compliance with replanting requirements.. Will need to send follow up letter. 04/10/25 Violation compliance letter sent. Deadline to remove all fencing w/in 75 feet of shore is May 22nd. Will need to conduct site visit after deadline to confirm continued compliance. 05/27/25 Site visit scheduled for 05/29/25 06/09/25 Neighbor emailed POD that owner has told other residents that he is not going to take the fence down because it is for his children's safety. He started to do the removal and then stopped and plans to put it back up. “Is safety a reason he can put the fence back up?" I informed neighbor that I will be onsite this week and if they put the fence back up after my visit, she should contact me. 06/11/25 Site visit showed panels have been removed from fence along lot line (panels are laying in a pile along the shore) but posts are still present. Tall black fence by SW corner of house is still present. Owner would like to keep this fence and some black fencing along the steep retaining walls as his son is autistic and doesn't have any safety awareness so they are concerned he would fall down the steep retaining walls. 06/11/25 Spoke with supervisors. Will conduct another site visit to ensure the posts have been removed and will advise owner that a variance is needed to retain the black fencing near the retaining walls since it is within 75' of the OHWM. Page 3 of 7 06/30/25 Neighbor emailed photos. Stated that "The plan for the neighbors appears to be that they will leave in the posts and lean the fencing against it. I'm guessing they feel it is then no longer a permanent structure and rules don't apply to it. He has recently installed solar lights on the top of each post, so I assume he is keeping them in long term. It both looks horrible, and has to be a technicality for leaving it in place. I can try to take more pictures if you need them. It is difficult to see how he has leaned the fencing slats against the post, but easy to see in person. " 07/10/25 Compliance letter sent. They will have until July 25th to remove remaining post and fencing or will need to apply for a variance by that deadline to keep any of the fencing (even around the retaining walls) 07/21/25 Spoke w/ Jeff Sorensen as he left a call w/ POD that he wanted to talk with me. I told him I can email the variance application. Said that he would need to provide proof of hardship that is not personal in nature. He said that of course this is personal and that he's trying to keep his kids safe. I gave him an example that say you had more kids than the number of bedrooms available that is a personal consideration. He understood what I meant but was not happy about it. Emailed his wife the application and reminded them of the July 25th deadline to apply by. 07/28/25 No application for variance received on or before July 25th. Will conduct site visit to find out if fencing is still present. 08/04/25 Called owner, they said application was coming via certified mail. 08/07/25 Application arrived, AT received application and routed to admin for processing. 11/20/25 Variance went before County BOA in October. Requested tabled, as owners were not in attendance and neighbor raised concerns which need to be addressed by the owners. BOA likely to take action at the January meeting. 12/22/25 Item will be on the January BOA agenda for action. 1/14/26 Variance request approved by the County BOA. Owners need to submit a survey showing the location of the fence and record a Deed Restriction prior to Zoning Permit issuance. A violation letter will be sent establishing deadlines for compliance. 2/18/26 Violation letter sent. Deadline for ZP appl and deed restriction is March 18th 2026. 04/07/26 The 3/18 deadline has passed and no application has been received by PZD. JH suggested calling or emailing to make contact and follow up with a formal letter if there is no reply. 04/09/26 Staff sent an email to the owners following up on permit requirements. 04/21/26 Jeff Sorensen called to talk about fence issue and left VM. 04/23/26 AT called Jeff to talk about permit requirements, left VM and sent email to wife with instructions to call me back. No response was received. 05/05/26 Left VM with Jeff and emailed him and his wife letting them know I'll be stopping by to confirm the fence has been removed as they have not applied for a zoning permit. 05/05/26 Site visit revealed garden fencing along retaining wall, white posts still present, white and black metal panels laying on ground, and the fencing by the retaining wall still present. Jeff said he has had heart surgery, 2 concussions, and a stroke (which was his reasoning for why he and his wife had not responded to my calls and emails). He expressed an interest in planting vegetation to screen his property. He wanted to know why they could not put up a white picket fence and he was still interested in fencing the north side of the property from the detached garage along the house to the shore for their dogs and son's safety. AT told him she was not involved in the variance process and Evan can give him a call to discuss. 05/06/26 AT sent an email with the variance approval info and site plan to the owners. She requested they have application materials submitted within 2 weeks or request more time. 05/13/26 AT left a voicemail with both Jeff and Heather with instructions to call me with questions on the approval so we can get the ZP addressed. AT reminded them of the deadline to have application info and plans submitted by 05/19/26. 05/19/26 AT discussed with JF – it was decided to give them 3 weeks to have application with plans submitted. Once they submit the ZP Appl, they will have 1 month to get the fencing up. Jeff called Evan to discuss the BOA approval. Jeff said that he was not a part of any discussion on the location of fencing and that what was approved by BOA would not protect his son. He threatened to sue based on noncompliance with ADA. Discussion with JF and EH – moving forward, ensure all correspondence is via letter; don't waste time trying to get a hold of them over phone or email. We will issue citations if they continue to leave it as is or don't get a permit. Evan will let them know that AT will be sending letter giving them 3 weeks to apply. In discussion with EH, Evan mentioned that there isn't a paper trail and that they agreed on the staff recommendation and options for the fence but EH had phone conversations with them on what Page 4 of 7 PZD was recommending for approval and what the decision from the BOA was so they were not in the dark about it. 05/20/26 Violation draft letter sent to JF to review. 05/22/26 Email from neighbor that arborvitae have been planted along lot line, fencing placed along driveway (likely within the commonly owned outlot). Panels look to be the "garden panels". Photo shows panels are along the shoreline and owners have attempted to obscure them with shrubs/bushes. Per conversations with JF they are easy to install and can be easily removed so owner will need to remove them to comply with state law as it does not matter the type of panels it still is considered fencing. 05/22/26 Left VM with owner. Told him we received another complaint and he will need to remove the "garden panels" immediately from being within the shore setback and floodplain as well as the commonly owned out lot. 05/23/26 An email was received from a neighbor: "we did ask him to remove the fencing he has been putting up, but he informed us it isn't fencing, it's just panels and he needs it to keep his child safe. He said he would not be removing any of it." 06/01/26 Draft letter updated per discussion with JF. Included language on applying for zoning permit. Compliance deadline of June 18th. 06/22/26 Email sent to neighbor asking if any of the fencing has been removed. AT asked for permission to inspect from her residence. Permission was granted via email. 07/03/26 AT site visit with JF. White posts are still present. White panels are piled up in the same spot as last visit. Black panels have been placed along the shoreline. 07/20/26 Per discussion with JF: as this is a minor violation we should do a teams meeting with the owners with the goal of them resolving the violation - remove white posts and removing the panels along the shoreline. 07/27/26 Photo from neighbor received showing some sort of wire strung along the fence posts along southern lot line. Appears in some spots to be anchored by the arborvitae that were planted along the lot line previously. Fencing along shoreline is still in place. 07/30/26 Staff is working on getting ahold of the owners to schedule meeting to discuss what they need to do to resolve the violation. 08/26/26 Email has been sent to owner requesting teams meeting with them to resolve violation. Have received no reply. (Pending, AT) Rachel and Jeff Schaefer, S101W34695 CTH LO; Junk, work w/o permits, structure in disrepair 8/5/2021: Received complaint regarding junk, work without permits and residence/fence in disrepair. After multiple attempts, our office was unable to inspect the property. Summer 2023: Owner contacted the office in summer of 2023 for a zoning permit. Our office 10/23/23: County sent a letter that stated the following: Listing photos revealed miscellaneous junk was present and viewable to the present. Owner was made aware of the active violation on the property. He granted our office permission to inspect over the phone. 6/2/23: A site inspection was conducted, revealing land altering activities with new basement construction. In addition, multiple items regulated as junk including an unlicensed boat, inoperable boat trailer, broken hot tub, construction materials, buckets and other miscellaneous items were observed. The owners had deadlines of 6/23/23 to submit a zoning permit application and 7/10/23 to remove junk from the property. 10/16/23: Another site inspection was conducted which revealed little progress had been made and a majority of the junk and miscellaneous materials remained on-site and visible. No zoning permit application had been received at that time either. Deadlines of 11/6/23 and 11/27/23 were given to apply for a ZP and remove the junk-type items, respectively. Note: the staff person involved soon after left the county and the violation was reassigned. April 2024: Citations were issued 5/6/24. The owner was scheduled a court date of 6/5/24 and failed to show. Corp Counsel stated that she waits a month and if the owners do not contact them to reopen the case, it is closed out after a month. Corp Counsel suggested that a follow-up letter be written. 9/26/24 Staff working with Corp Counsel to get clarity on next steps. 11/15/24 A violation letter was sent to the subject property on 11/15/24. It appears a previous employee was able to contact the owner using that address (I have been using the mailing address on file with tax Page 5 of 7 listing). The owner was given a deadline of 12/2/24 to submit a zoning permit and minor grading permit application and remove junk-type items from the property. No further extensions will be granted; additional citations will be immediately issued if the permits are not applied for and/or the property is not in compliance with the Ordinance. 12/4/24 Owner applied and paid for an ATF zoning permit for the replacement/repair of the residence’s foundation. There is a discrepancy between the survey we have on file and GIS. It appears some of the lots in this subdivision were redescribed in 1978 (?). Tax listing is looking into the discrepancy and we have not heard back. 1/27/25 Emailed Tax Listing for a second time to obtain information on the right of way discrepancy. Another attempt with be made. KSF 3/30/25: Emailed tax listing for a third time to obtain information on the right of way discrepancy. No response. 4/1/25 Called owner and left a voicemail stating that I would conduct a site inspection in the near future. 4/10/25 Conducted site inspection which revealed miscellaneous junk and construction materials were still present on the property in addition to a vehicle that is not registered. Items that were present include: buckets, bricks, miscellaneous wooden items, ladders, a cement mixer, a trailer, tree stumps, a refrigerator, plywood, a fish tank, and a large pile of decorative stones. I did not walk the entire property. 4/11/25 A violation letter was sent, with a deadline of 5/30 to bring property into compliance. 4/22/25 Received call from owner stating the tires have been placed on the trailer and he will need to call a junk removal company for the refrigerator. The septic system was pumped on 4/18 and the PSE was issued. 4/24/25 Zoning Permit E24:019 was issued and a new deadline of 6/30 was granted to remove the remaining items. 5/28/25 The owner has until 6/30 to remove the remaining items (junk, construction materials, etc.). A site inspection will be conducted on or shortly after that deadline. 6/20/25 No update as deadline is still pending. 7/28/25 Site inspection conducted, which revealed minimal progress. The refrigerator is gone and all the vehicles are registered. The deadline to complete the basement and remove the construction materials is October 24. The owner stated he would start getting rid of junk items on and near back porch. 11/20/25 Jeff called a couple weeks ago and staff has been playing phone tag. Staff will try to contact him again and schedule a site inspection. 12/26/25 No update; staff will attempt to contact owner. 1/28/26: Spoke with owner regarding progress on junk cleanup and basement construction. He said he is still working on the basement; has a couple footings and a beam. He stated the yard is “pretty well cleaned up”, that some of the remaining items will go into the basement when it’s done. We agreed that he has until the zoning permit expires (10/16/26) to complete the basement, but I will follow up in June to check progress. Will send a follow up letter with a June deadline to clean up property. 2/27/26 Follow-up violation letter pending review by supervisor. 3/4/26 Violation letter sent to owner stating deadline to complete the basement and remove junk items from property is 10/16/26. 7/30/26 No update. Deadline to complete basement and remove junk items is 10/16/26. (Pending, KS) Eagle Spring Pub, W345 S10463 CTH E Dumpsters not enclosed, noncompliance with SP187 Condition 19 5/26/26 Complaint received stating dumpsters are not fully enclosed and trash is blowing around from overflowing dumpsters. 6/29/26 Staff conducted a site inspection from the ROW and revealed that the doors are not on the dumpster enclosure. 7/10/26 Staff spoke with the owner who stated someone ran into the enclosure with their vehicle. The person who was fixing it needed to have brain surgery and the owner has been waiting for his return. He anticipated the call regarding the violation and said he would “get on it.” He is proposing a different enclosure. 7/16/26 Staff sent violation letter with a deadline of 8/10/26 to fully enclose the dumpsters. 8/25/26 Follow up site inspection required which will be completed the week of August 31st. (Pending, KS) Page 6 of 7 Brian Shanklin, W343S10206 CTH E Trash, furniture and vehicles on property 7/7/26 Complaint received about trash, furniture and vehicles strewn about the property. 7/27/26 Staff sent a violation letter requesting permission to inspect. Deadline to respond is 8/10/26. 8/25/26 No response received from property owner. The adjacent property (S102W34417 CTH LO), which was in common ownership recently sold and is actively being cleaned up. An additional request to inspect will be mailed. (Pending, KS) Nancy and Joseph Ringer, S109W34730 JACKS BAY RD Habitation of a camper 07/08/26 Complaint received about habitation of a camper 07/08/26 ROW site visit by county staff confirmed camper is present and shows signs of habitation (slide out) 07/27/26 Violation letter sent. Deadline of 08/14/26 to cease habitation or start storage of camper. 08/13/26 Phone call with owner. Son has been sleeping there since the first of July. no cooking or sanitation hook up presently. Son will move out of camper. Gave her until August 21st (1 week) to have it closed up in a storage capacity. Will take photos from ROW after deadline. 08/26/26 Will request confirmation from neighbor that camper is no longer being habituated. (Pending, AT) HOFELD REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST, S108W34835 SOUTH SHORE DR Adverse drainage caused by construction of new residence, failure to comply with new home zoning permit conditions 05/23/26 Initial complaint received via POD from neighbor via email 05/26/26 AT replied to complainant with info on the approved new home permit that was issued and providing context that naturally (and historically) drainage runs to their properties given the steep slopes. Asked for evidence that they are not abiding by terms of permit and asked for photos. 06/04/26 Complainant replied with photos showing poor erosion control (wash out onto street). Expressed interest in runoff being captured by TIS on property. Town BI copied. 06/09/26 AT and JF have technical assistance meeting with LRD (Marissa and Alan) with a focus on adverse drainage and possible solutions. Decided a group site visit was needed to get full picture. email sent to complainant that we will be having a site visit with LRD to discuss solutions. JF spoke with builder about us coming out for a site visit. Builder said complainant has been in touch with them about the construction noise and traffic. 06/29/26 AT conducted a site visit with LRD (Alan and Riley) and JF. Beehive drain was noted by curve on SE side of JBR, rain garden or infiltration trench by house was discussed. Better erosion control methods are required (currently they are failing). 07/08/26 AT reached out to LRD via email to check in with them on getting a report from them on EC and drainage calculations for rain garden or infiltration trench. 07/09/26 Email from Riley with marked up grading plan and detailed summary of solutions and standards for the improvements to meet. 07/09/26 JF emailed builder (copied town BI) with the recommendations that Riley provided. Will wait to see what the builder comes back with and PZD will check in with town BI (hopefully BI will check on the erosion control again once they make the needed adjustments) 07/24/26 Per builder, the owners have agreed to a rain garden. LRD will coordinate with landscaper for installation. 07/27/26 Neighbor's would still like to do a meeting with us to discuss the violation. Meeting scheduled for 08/07/26 at the county office. 08/07/26 Meeting with neighbor consisted of going through how we came to rain garden. Discussed washout on their property and lack of erosion control 08/25/26 JF called BI to ask him to review the erosion control on the property. Will also call town engineer to see where his review is at. Photos sent from neighbor show runoff during rainstorm consists of fines. Conversation with Riley from LRD stated: "The bulk of what I see running down the road is the fines from the stone driveway in which is very hard to filter out, if not impossible." (Pending, AT) Page 7 of 7 NOTES: This list of zoning violations in the Town of Eagle are pending with the Town of Eagle and/or with Waukesha County PZD. The list is provided to the Town each month at the request of the Town Plan Commission. N:\PRKANDLU\Planning and Zoning \Community Assistance \T EAGLE \Violations\TOWN OF EAGLE ZONING VIOLATIONS PENDING WITH WC AND TOWN.docx Revised 8/25/26 JH