Zoning Board of Appeals- - Minutes - 4/27/2000
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 27, 2000
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Terry O’Neil, Mike
Brand, David Conley, Barbara Blumenfield and Assistant Plan Director Dustin Wolff.
ABSENT: Chris Wiken
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: Secretary reported notice was given on April 14,
2000, in accordance with the Open Meeting Laws.
NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #05-2000, Petitioner: Theresa Meyerring, Residence:
W193 S7394 Richdorf Drive, Muskego, REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17
Zoning Ordinance: Section 17:3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following
variances: Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 Building Location: No building
shall hereafter be erected, structurally altered, or relocated so that it is closer to any lot
line than the offset distance hereinafter specified by the regulations for the district in
which it is located. Petitioner seeks a 9” offset variance to permit a 19’3” offset to
construct an attached garage. The Ordinance requires a 20’ side offset for all structures.
Zoned: Rs-2, Suburban Residence District.
Mr. Schneiker administered an oath to Theresa and Karl Meyerring and neighbor Cheryl
Huebner. Mr. Meyerring stated they removed a one car garage from the west lot line that
was in bad disrepair. They wish to construct a two car garage on the east side of the lot
that will be aesthetically pleasing without having to remove the patio door, patio window,
concrete or a window at the side of the house.
Chairman Schepp stated that money in and of itself can not constitute a hardship. Mr.
Schepp asked if anyone informed him this fact. Mr. Meyerring said no he was not aware of
this, however, placing the garage flush with the house, as suggested by Staff is not going
to look right. Mr. Schepp stated Mr. Meyerring should rethink his hardship and state it
better.
Mr. Wolff stated the staff recommends denying due to failure to establish a hardship. A
variance may be granted only if no other way to use property in manner intended,
according to court rulings. In this case, the structure is currently conforming. The
proposed garage could be located so a variance does not need to be granted.
Mr. O’Neil questioned where the variance is requested in relationship to location of
proposed garage. Mr. Wolff stated sideyard offset are 15’ and 20’. By requesting a
variance for the east side where the proposed garage will be built would require a 5 foot
variance. The west side requires a lesser variance.
Mr. Meyerring stated they received a letter from the neighbors on the west side of their
property stating they have no problem with the proposed garage.
Mr. O’Neil again requested clarification for which side to grant a variance. Dr. Blumenfield
stated there is no set side to have the 15’ or the 20’ or else the city would wind up with
cookie cutter construction.
ZBA 4/27/2000
Page 2
Mr. O’Neil again stated he does not understand the logic of granting a variance for the
west side of the property when the proposed garage will be on the east side .
Mr. Schepp asked Mr. Meyerring if he anything else to add. Mr. Meyering discussed
needing a variance of 6 inches for 1 to 2 feet of his house on the west side.
Board of Appeals members discussed location option. Mr. Meyerring stated he originally
wanted the west side of his property for the new garage, however, a 40 foot setback is
required. Mrs. Meyering commented she has owned this property for 11 years.
Dustin Wolff recapped Staff’s position. He also agreed site was challenging based upon the
topography but the practical place to build a detached garage is where they are proposing
it. Federal and State courts do not allow granting variances unless practical difficulties
exist on property and they do have ample room on property to site this structure. It is
inconvenient to move it back or flush with the residence but that will meet their needs.
Mr. Conley argued garage would be smaller and less usable if flush with residence. They
could move it back from front of the house. Mr. Wolff state that by moving it back would
provide horizontal relief from the home and a minimum two car garage is 20 feet.
Mr. O’Neil was still confused why a variance is being requested for the west side of the
home where no construction will occur. Mr. Wolff said no to consider the west side. What
is required is 15 and 20 foot offsets and the least amount of variance required to meet the
petitioner’s request is 9 inches. Mr. Conley stated they are requesting a variance for the
lot. Mr. O’Neil said they are requesting 6 inch offset to the pre existing location of the
structure that is 19.2 feet from the lotline. Mr. Wolff reminded the Board this is a legal
conforming structure. Mr. Conley stated this would be a self-imposed hardship.
Cheryl Huebner stated she lives directly to the east and she was interested in the structure
to be built. She has no concerns regarding the proposed garage.
Appeal #06-2000, Petitioner: Matt York, REMOVED AT THE PETITIONERS’ REQUEST.
***********************************************************************
DELIBERATIONS
Mr. O’Neil made a motion to approve the appeal as submitted. Mr. Brandt seconded.
Hardship to be defined as pre-existing location, irregular placement of house on site and
topography of site. Upon roll call vote, motion passed 4-1. Mr. Conley voted nay.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 2000 MEETING: Mr. Brandt made a
motion to approve the February minutes as submitted. Dr. Bloomenfield seconded,
upon roll call vote, motion carried.
ADJOURN: Mr. Brandt made the motion to adjourn at 8:30 P.M., Mr. Conley seconded,
upon roll call vote, motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Schroeder
ZBA 4/27/2000
Page 3
Recording Secretary