Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hortonville board approves conditional use CU-1-26 to allow duplex on R-1 lot
Summary
The Village of Hortonville board voted unanimously Feb. 19 to approve conditional use CU-1-26, permitting a two-family dwelling on a property in an R‑1 single‑family district; trustees debated its grandfathered history and whether approval binds future owners.
The Village of Hortonville board voted unanimously Feb. 19 to approve conditional use CU‑1‑26, allowing a duplex on a property zoned R‑1 (single family) after a lengthy discussion of the lot’s zoning history.
The item was introduced by the presiding speaker, who read the planning and zoning recommendation to approve the conditional use. Trustee (Speaker 3) moved to approve CU‑1‑26 and Speaker 1 seconded; the board recorded a roll-call vote of unanimous “Aye” and the motion carried.
Trustees and staff recounted that the house had been used as a two‑family residence for “70 plus years” before being treated as single family in village records. Planning and zoning recommended conditional use rather than rezoning; Speaker 7 explained a conditional use is required to permit a duplex within an R‑1 district when a previously nonconforming duplex has reverted to single‑family use.
A central point of debate concerned whether approval should be perpetual or owner‑specific. Speaker 7 said planning and zoning favored an owner‑by‑owner approach so future buyers would need to apply for the conditional use, while other trustees raised concerns about notice wording that had described the proposal as “multifamily,” which some residents found confusing.
In discussion trustees compared the situation to other grandfathered uses in the village and noted record gaps about an earlier R‑2 designation. Trustee (Speaker 3) summarized the practical effect: approving the conditional use would permit the duplex under the specified conditions, but a new owner might still need to reapply depending on how the conditional use is recorded and applied.
The board took the motion to a vote and approved CU‑1‑26. The board did not adopt a change to the underlying zoning map (rezoning), nor did it adopt language described in the meeting as a perpetual entitlement; trustees emphasized that future ownership changes could require new applications.
The recommendation of the planning and zoning commission and the full village‑board approval stand as the current basis for the property’s use. The board did not specify additional conditions in the meeting record; any administrative conditions or recorded limitations will appear in the official conditional‑use document filed with village staff.
