Lawsuits showcase land disputes along St. Croix River

A Hudson, Wis., couple want to build a house overlooking the St. Croix River. They sought four variances to laws that were designed to protect the federally protected river's "scenic and natural characteristics" from development.

Landowners Ben and Nicole Hanke and their builder, Bruce Lenzen, proposed a two-story house with a two-car garage. The variances they sought included building the house closer to the river than allowed and clearing 9,700 square feet of vegetation.

The Hankes said their 1.2-acre lot in Troy, a town of 4,300 south of Hudson, was configured in such a way that they couldn't build their house within legal setbacks unique to the protected river.

But after two days of testimony, two visits to the building site and 53 exhibits, the St. Croix County zoning board denied them the variances and conditional use permit they needed for construction.

"The granting of the variance will be contrary to the public interest of protecting the Lower St. Croix Valley," the five-member board wrote in the Feb. 26 ruling, citing erosion, lack of screening and storm runoff pollution.

Zoning board members determined that the house would have "a negative impact on property values in the surrounding area." The Hankes aren't unique because many other properties along the river, including seven in the neighborhood, have similar restrictions and challenges, the board said.

The Hankes have responded by filing a lawsuit through their company, Calda Donna LLC, contending that the zoning board reached conclusions that were "arbitrary … and unreasonable" and "represent the will of the board members and not an exercise in judgment." They want the board's decision reversed.

Clarence "Buck" Malick, chairman of the zoning board, said the Calda Donna case eventually could become as important as the Murr case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Murr vs. Wisconsin, a family that has owned a riverfront cabin on the St. Croix since 1960 wanted to redevelop the property into a residence, but the zoning board said that was a prohibited action under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and other laws.

Both cases resemble similar development conflicts on both sides of the river, Malick said, although it's rare when they go to court. They're also typical of disputes on other rivers under federal protection elsewhere in the nation.

Variances don't always threaten the river's view shed — the sweep of land visible from a location, which on the St. Croix is intended to remain as natural as possible — and some may actually improve it. For example, landowners might seek to replace a blighted structure with an earth-toned house less visible from the water.

Landowners often say that river protections intrude on their private property rights.