Zoning Board of Appeals- MINUTES - 2/26/1998
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 1998
PRESENT: Chairman Terry O’Neil, Vice Chairman Mike Brandt, Dan Schepp, and David Conley.
ABSENT: James Ross, Henry Schneiker and Ed Herda.
MINUTES: Minutes had not been distributed with the packets. They will be approved next month.
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: Secretary reported notice was given February 13, 1998, in accordance
with Open Meeting Laws.
OLD BUSINESS: Letter for September, October and December meetings will be signed in March along with the
minutes.
Amended Appeal # 31-97, Michael and Amy Hall, S79 W16061 Bay Lane Place, Tax Key No. 2217.989
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following four (4)
variances:
1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.04 (7) E OLS Lake Shore District, Lake Shore Offset. No
structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it
is located. Petitioner seeks a 41 foot variance to place an accessory building 9 feet from the north property
line. (zoning requirement is 50 feet)
2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A.1. Legal Nonconformity: No structure shall be expanded
or enlarged, except within conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located. Petitioner
seeks to expand a second level over a legal nonconforming structure in a floodplain and offset area.
3. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A.2. Legal Nonconformity: Said regulation restricts
expansion or enlargement of a nonconforming structure to no more than 50% of its current fair market value.
Petitioner seeks to repair, alter, and expand said structure over 50% of its current fair market value.
4. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.05 (2) C.4, Accessory Uses and Structures, Permanent Structures.
Said regulation states no detached private garage shall have a floor area greater than 60% of the floor area of
the principal building on the lot. Petitioner seeks a 52 square foot variance to construct a 660 square foot
accessory building. (zoning requirement is 608 s.f.)
Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay
(This item had been deferred from the December 11, 1997, meeting) Mr. Hall presented a new survey that
attached the proposed garage to the house, thus eliminating the request for appeals #1 and #4. Mr. Hall is
requesting a variance contingent on approval of FEMA to amend the flood plain on his property.
Mr. Trejo stated the proposed garage is still within 50 feet of the creek, Planning Staff feels there are other
buildable locations where the garage could be attached to the house that would be in conformance with the Zoning
Code, if the flood plain can be amended on the property. Also, there is still the issue of renovating this residence
beyond the 50% rule of its current fair market value. The ordinance was set in place to avoid the expansion of
nonconforming structures in areas that present hazards to the general public or are contrary to the public interest.
In this case, you have a structure, not only in the flood plain, but also within the 50 foot offset area from a
navigable body of water. This building should not be there, but because it is, the owner can modify, renovate or
interiorly alter the structure, so long as the 50% rule is not exceeded. But, the rule explicitly states, that the
structure can not be expanded or enlarged.
Mr. Hall commented this is an ugly house with two previous additions put on. Mr. Hall stated he has two different
dimension on his roof. The flat roof is hard to keep dry. His intent is to unify the roof with an A-Frame., this will
not be increasing living space. He intends to unify the house by removing the top. This approach would have less
affect to the environment and improve the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hall also feels that the $16,000
value on the home is an arbitrary figure.
BOA 02/26/98
Page 2
Mr. Trejo stated by allowing Mr. Hall to do this is not fair to the previous owner or others who would have
purchased this house if they found out it could be expanded. According to the assessed value of this home, Mr.
Hall would be allowed to only do approximately $8,500 worth of structural repairs. The purpose of this ordinance
is to upkeep nonconforming structures, not to expand those structures and increase the amount of nonconformity.
Mr. Hall stated he discovered the problem with the joists when replacing drywall on the ceiling, it was sagging and
cracked. Mr. Hall explained the joist work, previously done, contributed to the poor conditions of the house, which
has led to the lower value on this house. (Previous owner notched 4 inch holes in the joist to allow a pipe to run
through to the chimney). Mr. Hall has sistered 2 x 4’s to the weakened joists
Chairman O’Neil stated it is a hardship for Mr. Hall to have to repair the joists and put the house back to its’
original condition. Chairman O’Neil stated Mr. Hall should get a recommendation from the Building Department
to replace these joist, thus if ordered to replace joist and the cost exceed the 50% rule, there would be a hardship.
Mr. Hall was asked if the additions on the house contain 4’ footings? Mr. Hall stated he does not believe they do,
however he has spoken to a mason that could correct that problem.
Mr. Brandt asked why not take down the structure and start over. Mr. Hall stated he has only 23’ available for the
width of a new residence; they would lose the view, which is the reason this house is so valuable to him.
Mr. Schepp stated Mr. Hall needs a better site plan with the garage located out of the floodplain area.
Mr. Brandt stated, in the future, Mr. Hall should get any information from the City in writing with a signature to
eliminate confusion or misunderstanding.
Mike Brandt made a motion to defer until Mr. Hall resolves the flood plain issue. Also, next time, it is requested
the inspector that inspected the property be present to discuss what happened during the site investigation. Mr.
Conley seconded. Upon roll call vote, motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS: None
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: Chairman O’Neil questioned what Mr. Knox, (Appeal #10-97), W180 S6807
Muskego Drive is building, it appears he has enclosed his porch. Chairman O’Neil questioned the status of S73
W17228 Lake Drive where the Board of Appeals approved the garage to remain standing until the house was built.
Mr. Trejo stated the petitioner did not purchase the property, however, the variance stays with the property.
Chairman O’Neil requested Mr. Trejo to investigate a lean-to with lights located at W180 S6701 Muskego Drive
A discussion ensued regarding alternates not attending the meeting. In the case of Mr. Hall’s appeal, Mr. Herda
was not present in December and again in February. The consensus was an alternate should always be present, if
you are a member of this committee.
ADJOURN: Mr. Conley made a motion to adjourn, Mr. Schepp seconded. With no further business to come
before this Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Schroeder, Recording Secretary