Track Ordered Demolished by County Officials
Waukesha County officials have ordered a town man to remove his 10-acre private dirt bike track, saying it was built illegally behind his home without required grading and fill permits.
The county Park and Land Use Department gave Paul Hochmuth and his family a July 11 deadline to either remove the dirt ramps or apply for a conditional use permit to allow its continued use.
Hochmuth said Tuesday that he had not decided what to do. But he said he hoped he could find a solution that would resolve his neighbors’ concerns about noise and dust but allow his son, an award-winning amateur motocross competitor, to continue to use the track as a practice facility.
[...]
Neighbors have been complaining about Hochmuth’s track since shortly after he built it in 1995. Many residents moved in after the track was built, but they say the track has grown in size and use as Hochmuth’s son, Greg, now 26, got more involved in motocross events.
[...]
Hochmuth has been down this road before.
In 2004 he tried to resolve neighborhood complaints by applying for county grading permits to build an $8,000 berm.
He said he spent more than $2,000 on the berm plans. The county held a public hearing, and the closest neighbor, Rachel Glennon, said the large berm would be worse to live with than the noise and dust.
Faced with opposition, Hochmuth withdrew his request. And for reasons that Hochmuth could not explain Tuesday, the county did not try to enforce its grading and fill rules or order the track removed.
“The county was out here,” Hochmuth said of the 2004 berm request. “The Army Corps of Engineers was out there. The DNR was out there. I had six state and federal governmental agencies walking my property and they had no problem with my track at that time, so it’s a little after the fact, which is frustrating.”
Hochmuth clearly has done everything reasonable to comply with the law and accommodate his neighbors’ concerns, and they change the rules on him.
From the story it is clear that he did not pull the required permits before building and using this track.
In a letter sent to Hochmuth last month, county officials say that Hochmuth’s dirt track violates the county’s shoreland and floodplain protection ordinance.
It orders Hochmuth to cease all “earth-altering and land disturbing activities” and by July 11 submit a detailed plan to “remove all illegally placed fill and restore the disturbed areas,” or apply for a conditional use permit.
If he illegally placed fill in a floodplain they are letting him off easy. Some people get fined for violations like that.
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 0818 hrsJust goes to show you noone has private property rights. I dread the day the NIMBYs move into my currently rural neighborhood.
Is it true that there have been complaints since 1995? That’s a new bit of info. I wonder why the town and/or county didn’t take action back then.
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 0823 hrsIs it true that there have been complaints since 1995? That’s a new bit of info. I wonder why the town and/or county didn’t take action back then.
Maybe they thought it was a ridiculous waste of time then.
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 0829 hrsI agree that it is ridiculous that the county would let this slide for a decade then impose their rules.
But, if everyone was able to filling in the floodplain on their property however they see fit floods like we saw this year would become an annual event.
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 0832 hrsBut, if everyone was able to filling in the floodplain on their property however they see fit floods like we saw this year would become an annual event.
If nobody ever filled floodplain, Milwaukee would not exist.
I do get your point, though. Reasonable land use requirements benefit everyone.
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 0837 hrsIf I have to ask for your permission to build on my land, then whose property is it really?
-jjg
Posted by J. Gravelle on July 02, 2008 at 0904 hrs
DailyScoff.comThis is not at all surprising. The church I attend is in the process of building a new facility. Right now, we are still in the planning stage, due to the DNR moving the goalposts every time we meet with them.
Posted by Coop on July 02, 2008 at 0916 hrsFor those of you whose position is “I can do whatever I want on my own land!”: Either go back to 1890 or join the rest of us in the modern world where zoning and other land use regulations are a necessity of community life.
I myself don’t see how the guy is being wronged. He needed a permit to do what he did. He didn’t get one. His neighbors complained about the activity. He needed a permit to do something he felt would alleviate their concerns. He tried to get one. But the neighbors blocked the permit, saying that these measures would be worse than the original problem. And now the guy is being called out for the lack of a permit to do what he did in the first place.
Are you faulting his neighbors for complaining about the track? Or maybe faulting them for complaining about the plans for the berm?
Are you faulting the very concept of having to get government approval to do things like this in the first place? (Those folks who should go back to 1890, mentioned above.)
Posted by scott on July 02, 2008 at 1014 hrsAnd those who believe in the all-knowing and all-powerful authority of the State in all matters should go back to 1775 or join the modern world, where the concept of liberty is respected.
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 1017 hrsNo one is going anywhere, Scott.
We will continue to advocate liberty. When we finally achieve it, you can use your imaginary time machine to find your own personal Stalinist utopia.
Or you can go jump off a bridge.
Posted by Kristopher on July 02, 2008 at 1107 hrsThat would be a witty retort if someone here was actually arguing--or even implying--that they welcomed an “all-powerful” state. But no such comments appear in this thread.
On the flip side, there are people here whose comments clearly indicate that they have the “if it’s your property you should be able to do anything you want” mentality.
Posted by scott on July 02, 2008 at 1109 hrsYour blog is aptly named Kristopher.
I have to give you kudos for that bike you built though.
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 1122 hrsYes Scott, you did advocate an all powerful state the moment you declared he needed the states’ permission. I guess those bits about being safe in your house and effects and not being deprived of your property without compensation are “just words”.
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 1134 hrsEither go back to 1890 or join the rest of us in the modern world ...
Or move to Houston, where modern man has gotten along fine in the absence of zoning laws.
But in the spirit of finding a consensus, I’ll grant you this point: landowners were far more free in 1890 than today. That’s either praise for “then”, or a condemnation of “now”.
Take it however you’d like…
-jjg
Posted by J. Gravelle on July 02, 2008 at 1337 hrs
DailyScoff.comSo basically if someone’s in favor of zoning laws they are Stalinists. That’s kind of the global takeaway I’m getting from several of the responses to me. Zoning laws = Stalin.
It’s nice that we have such thoughtful, sober and well-reasoned discussions here. Usually one would have to go to, say, the O’Reilly Factor or the Rush Limbaugh Show to get this level of sophisticated insight.
:\
Posted by scott on July 02, 2008 at 1343 hrsThis isn’t a zoning law question. There has been no violation of any zoning performed or even alleged.
And yes, laws enacted to regulate property must do so for a legitimate reason. There is no legitimate reason here beyond his whiny neighbors don’t like it.
Normally neighbors find ways to get along and jurisdictions are not so foolish as to push unenforceable laws to the extreme where they will be challenged. When asked in court what their reason for deny him the use of his land what will the county reply other than “because we think we can”?
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 1349 hrsTo be fair, our zoning policies were adapted from the model of the 1920s Weimar Republic:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n2f.html
So technically, zoning advocates aren’t Stalinists.
They’re more like Nazis…
-jjg
Posted by J. Gravelle on July 02, 2008 at 1436 hrs
DailyScoff.comOur freeway system was modeled after the Nazi designed Autobahn.
Highway advocates = Nazis
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 1543 hrsAnd yes, laws enacted to regulate property must do so for a legitimate reason.
Did you read the story BVBB? The county is calling him out on placing fill in a floodplain. There is a really good reason for preventing people from doing that.
Ask the victims of the recent flood about that reason.
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 1549 hrsYou can place fill in a floodplain. The city is going to have prove he adversely affected someone else by placing the fill. Given that what he did was almost certainly to move around material that was already there to form a motocross track, the odds of him having affected anyone are pretty much zero. The odds that Waukesha county has done a study of it are exactly zero. If they take that to a courtroom they will be laughed straight out.
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 1559 hrsuh...J., the Nazis overthrew the Weimar Republic, so technically, wouldn’t that mean Nazis hated zoning?
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 1601 hrsThe complaints of neighbors have zip to do with land use, and everything to do with noise.
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 1625 hrs1. The antecedent to the modern American freeway is the New York Parkway system, circa ~1905. | Source | While the Autobahn was the first national(-ized) freeway system, Italy’s Autostrada dei Laghi precedes it.
2. The Weimar Republic was not overthrown. | Source | It collapsed under the ideological folly of the Social Democrats, who today would no doubt support the right of the <del>mob</del> majority to impose their will on an individual landowner by verboten der dirten bikenz…
-jjg
Posted by J. Gravelle on July 02, 2008 at 1739 hrs
DailyScoff.comThere certainly is more to highspeed road systems than the Autobahn, but the Nazi built road system inspired Eisenhower, who advocated for and built a road that rivaled the efficiency of the Nazi system for roadways.
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 1805 hrsIn At Ease, former President Eisenhower said:
The old convoy had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land.
He added:
This was one of the things that I felt deeply about, and I made a personal and absolute decision to see that the nation would benefit by it.
Because of his experiences, President Eisenhower fought hard to get Congress to pass the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. For that reason, he is called “The Father of the Interstate System.”
Aren’t interstate $$$$$$$$s in the budget still under the “defense” heading? I remember reading about the inception of the system, and how every so many miles have a stretch useful as an airstrip… cool stuff.
Oh, and this isn’t about where someone moved fill in a floodplain, this is about a bunch of whiny NIMBY-ers. I see this crap all across the country for drag strips (Byron, IL just recently lost a lawsuit brought by the local track for exactly this kind of foolishness). It’s been more than ten years - get over it or move.
Posted by Mike Gallo on July 02, 2008 at 1846 hrsIt’s not about zoning? Or having a permit? It’s only about “whiny neighbors”?
Neighbors whine about things all the time, but nothing comes of it. Try to built an addition on your home without a permit, however...well, that’s a different story isn’t it?
I’m really not getting a coherent picture of what’s up your guys’ butts on this one. Is it just that The Man came down and told Ted Nugent not to build Burning Man II in his back yard that’s got you in such a twist? Or is there more to it than that?
The guy chose to live in a community with regulations about how you can use and develop your land. He violated those rules. End of frickin’ story. If someone’s being “whiny,” it’s the guy himself--and all of you who seem to think he’s been done wrong somehow.
Posted by scott on July 02, 2008 at 1919 hrsScott,
Speaking for myself, these are the things that bother me about this:
1) Most of the neighbors are new and moved into the area after the track existed. It’s the whole “you can’t buy a house next to a runway and complain about airplane noise” thing.
2) The guy had all of the applicable agencies review the track and none of them raised any concerns. He welcomed the authorities to evaluate the track and they were fine with it.
3) The track has been there for 13 years and only now do they decide to enforce a subjective ordinance. If they let it go for 13 years - after they had inspected it - he had a reasonable expectation that what he was doing was in compliance.
4) He went through extraordinary efforts to appease the noise complaints. He offered to build a berm at his own expense. He enforced a time in the evening (I think 2100) when the racing would stop. Etc.
If he was planning on building this track new and the county said “no,” I’d be OK with that. If he built the thing without any input from officials and the county shut him down due to noise complaints, I’d be fine with that. But under these circumstances, the county had the opportunity to evaluate the track and make a decision years ago. They decided that it was OK. Now, after the man has spend thousands building and maintaining the track, the county changed its mind. THAT’S what I have a problem with.
Posted by Owen on July 02, 2008 at 1929 hrsOn the contrary Scott, he lives in a community, the United States, that has rules about about what government can and cannot do. The evidence we’ve seen suggests the government in question has violated those rules and if pressed on the matter will back down or will lose in court.
Posted by on July 02, 2008 at 2021 hrs
Ol' Army
