Zoning Board of Appeals - MINUTES - 8/27/1998
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGO
AUGUST 27, 1998
PRESENT: Chairman Terry O’Neil, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Dan Schepp, Mike Brandt, James Ross
and alternates David Conley and William LeDoux. Also present, Carlos Trejo, Planning and Zoning Assistant.
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: Secretary reported notice was given August 14, 1998, in accordance with
Open Meeting Laws.
MINUTES: Minutes of the July 23, 1998, meeting were deferred until the September meeting.
OLD BUSINESS: Signing of decision letters for the July 23, 1998, meeting was deferred to the September
meeting.
NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #10-98, Scott Salentine, S79 W16111 Bay Lane Place, Tax Key No. 2217.986
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following four (4)
variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be
erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner
seeks a 21 foot variance to erect and structurally alter the second level of an existing structure 34 feet from the
center of the Bay Lane Place right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 55 feet) 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance:
Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a
lot closer than 50 feet to the base setback line. Petitioner seeks a 16 foot variance to erect and structurally alter the
second level of an existing structure 34 feet from the center of the Bay Lane Place right-of-way. (zoning
requirement is 55 feet) 3. 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 within the setback area.
4. 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. Zoned: RS-3/OLS,
Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay
Mr. Schneiker administered an oath to Scott and Cindy Salentine. Ms. Salentine explained they wish to add a
second story to their property within the footprint of the existing home, and expand the foot print the building by
adding a foyer to the west end of the building, within the approved sideyard offsets. Prior to the construction of the
original structure, the existing Bay Lane Place right-of-way was a private easement and the home was conforming.
The City took over this street in 1984, when sewer was installed. The ultimate setback is currently running
through the existing home. Mr. Salentine stated that a new home west of his was built in 1994, within the setback
area and his proposed addition would not be any closer to the road than the new home. The addition would
increase the property values for the City. This home does not have a basement, also space is needed to raise a
family.
Mr. Trejo explained the noncomforming lot and the reductions given to this lot, being a lake shore overlay. The
actual location of the residence is also nonconforming, being that the residence is located to close to the existing
and ultimate right-of-way. The existing right-of-way is 20 feet and was acquired by the City when sewer service
was provided around 1982-83. Mr. Trejo explained how the residence is affected by both the existing and ultimate
right-of-way of 60 feet. In situations when a property owner wishes to alter and/or replace an existing structure
lying between the Base Setback Line and the existing street right-of-way, the Ordinance allows for the property
owner to seek approval via the Planning Commission. In this appeal, however, the petitioner not only seeks to
alter the existing structure with a second floor, but also expand the footprint of the building for a foyer. Also, Mr.
Trejo question the extent of the cost of the renovation, stating that total costs of the renovation, both within the
existing structure and the new second floor and foyer would exceed 50% of the assessed value as a whole.
BOA 08/27/98
Page 2
Mr. O’Neil asked if this is a dead end road. Mr. Trejo stated it is a T shaped road, with the area being questioned
servicing 8-10 lots.
Mr. Trejo stated Plan Commission has the ability to set conditions for alterations within the setback area, subject to
determination of whether the addition would meet the criteria of Section 6.10, Architectural Control. Thus the
only issues before the Board of Appeals would be the foyer and the cost of the renovation.
Mr. Trejo distributed the ordinance regarding the use of the 50% Rule. It is his interpretation that the entire cost
of work being done to create the new second floor comes within the confines of the 50 % Rule.
Mr. Brandt reviewed the proposed cost for the addition with the Board members and stated the amount would only
be $6,000, all other expenses are not structural and therefore do not count.
Mr. Trejo questioned the hardship relating to the addition of the foyer. Mr. Salentine stated the hardship is the
substandard road, the setback in the middle of the residence and no basement, (lack of storage). Mrs. Salentine
also stated conformity would be burdensome, they would be required to move the foundation of the entire house to
make it conforming.
DELIBERATIONS: Mr. Le Doux made a motion to approve Appeal #10-98 as submitted. Mr. Ross seconded.
After much deliberation regarding the interpretation of the 50% Rule, the hardship was defined as: 1. The City
taking ownership of an easement creating a road which made the residence nonconforming, 2. The unique
property limitations of this property 3. Allowing this variance would not cause an adverse affect on public safety.
Upon a roll call vote, the motion was approved 6-1 (Mr. Ross voting nay).
ADJOURN: With no further business to come before this board, Mr. Brandt made a motion to adjourn at 8:45
P.M. Mr. Schneiker seconded. After a voice vote, the motion to adjourn carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Schroeder
Recording Secretary