Zoning Board of Appeals- - Minutes- 12/6/2001
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGO
December 6, 2001 APPROVED
Meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M.
PRESENT: Barbara Blumenfield, David Conley, Terry O'Neil, Chairman Dan Schepp, Henry Schneiker and
Assistant Plan Director Dustin Wolff.
ABSENT: Mike Brandt, Horst Schmidt
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed in accordance with Open
meeting Laws.
NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #08-2001 Petitioner: Thomas and Mary Kies, S79W16099 Bay lane Place / Tax Key
No. 2217.987 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal
Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.08 EXISTING
SUBSTANDARD LOTS Where a lot has less land area or width than required for the district in which it is located
and was of record at the time of the passage of this Ordinance, such lot may be used for any purpose permitted in
such district, subject to the regulations governing substandard lots set forth under sec. 18.23; provided, however,
that in no case shall the setback, or offset requirements be reduced except by order of the Board of Appeals after
due hearing, or as otherwise herein provided. The open space requirements in the case of such lot may be
reduced without appeal provided the open area is equal to at least 75% of the actual lot area.
The parcel measures 8,620 SF in area. A minimum of 2,155 SF of open space is required to be maintained on the
property. The residence footprint measures 2,140 SF, allowing 15 SF of open space. The petitioner was required
to remove the existing 12’ x 16’ shed located on the property to accommodate the residence without violating the
open space requirement. In addition, the driveway may not be paved in order to comply with the requirement.
The petitioner seeks an exception to the open space requirement to allow the existing shed to remain, and to pave
the drive area. The shed measures 192 SF in area, and the proposed drive way will measure 632 SF. The
petitioner is requesting a variance to the open space requirement in the amount of 809 SF, or 34% of the lot area
Vice-chairman Schneiker administered the oath to Tom Kies, Cindy Salentine, Helen Anderson and Victoria Gorke.
Mr. Kies stated his main purpose was to keep the storage building that is in place there now. The building will
serve as benefit to him and to other residents as it is better to have storage under roof than outside. The idea of
having a paved driveway is certainly attractive and he would like to do that eventually, but that was not the original
purpose for the appeal. They will have a modest amount of storage on the property with only a crawl space under
the home even with the full-size garage. He would prefer to avoid the outdoor storage. He provided pictures for
the Board members to review. He believed there would be a hardship in not having enough storage space as is
common in small lakefront lots. There was discussion between Mr. Kies and the Board members on why he did not
appeal in a timely fashion.
Helen Anderson (S79W16087 Bay Lane Place) whose property is 10 feet from Mr. Kies' shed said her view to the
west was gone due to the height and size of his house. She asked to please leave the shed as she would hate to
see the mess if he did not have the shed.
Cindy Salentine (S79W16111 Bay Lane Place) preferred that the shed stay. She also preferred that the driveway
be paved because it would create less dust.
Victoria Gorke (W165N5384 Creekwood Crossing) spoke on behalf of Mr. Kies regarding the procedural appellate
time period. She mentioned that there are flaws in the system and that the petitioner not be held responsible and
for the Board not to make a decision deferring to the twenty-day time limit as the petitioner was not given (a) notice
of a final decision, (b) notice of the time period in which to appeal, and (c) the appellate process.
Assistant Plan Director Wolff presented the City’s opinion: The petitioner applied in June of this year for new
construction of a residence. At that time, he was made aware of certain concessions that would have to be made
BOA Minutes
12/6/01
Page 2
to accommodate the size of residence that he chose. The option would have been to build a smaller residence to
accommodate the existing shed. That decision was not made. The existing shed was initially constructed for the
same purposes that the petitioner wants to use it, for storage. The previous residence that was on the site totaled
531 square feet and was built on a slab. There was ample open space available. Eleven years later, the petitioner
has built a beautiful home, maximizing the building size that he can have on the property. The new residence
meets the required minimum setback and offsets for the non-conforming lot. During the course of building permit
review, the petitioner was informed the proposal would not meet the open space requirement unless the existing
shed was removed prior to occupancy of the residence as a condition of approval. The permit incorrectly listed the
inability to install a paved driveway as a second condition of approval. As no paved driveway was proposed with
the initial building permit, it should not have been listed as a condition. In regard to the driveway, the Board has
taken the position that all properties should be afforded the opportunity to install paved driveways. Paved
driveways enhance properties, reduce the effect of dust affecting the surrounding properties and reduce
sedimentation run-off. The shed and the driveway installation should be reviewed as separate issues. The ruling
by the Zoning Administrator with the building permit was that the shed must be removed prior to occupancy. That
needed to be appealed within a certain time frame that is outlined in the City Ordinance. The fact that the driveway
should have not been listed as a condition of approval allows it to come before the Board at this time. The Board
has time and time again said that a paved driveway enhances the home and is certainly not a detriment to
surrounding properties, and the Zoning Code does not effectively address the issue for non-conforming parcels.
Staff is recommending variance of the open space to allow for the paving of the driveway. Unfortunately, the
petitioner did not apply in time for the shed purposes, and there is no hardship associated with it so the staff is
recommending that the portion of the appellant's appeal for allowing the shed to remain should be denied.
DELIBERATIONS: Dr. Blumenfield made a motion to approve part of Appeal #08-2001 allowing the installation of
the 632 square foot paved driveway. Mr. Henry Schneiker seconded. Upon roll call vote, the motion carried 4-1,
with Mr. David Conley voting nay.
Mr. Conley made a motion to approve the Appeal #08-2001 as the second part of the appeal as it pertains to
allowing the storage building to remain. Mr. Terry O'Neill seconded. Upon a roll call vote, the motion was defeated,
4-1, with Chairman Schepp voting yes. Mr. Conley stated that unfortunately it was clear that the appellant chose to
not change the footprint of the house and take chances with the Board of Appeals later probably without knowledge
at that point of what was required to prove hardship or what the rules were regarding hardship. The appellant's
situation is self-imposed.
Mr. Kies, who was present throughout the deliberations, was informed by Chairman Schepp that he received
approval to install the paved driveway and he needed to raze the shed.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Dr. Blumenfield moved to approve the minutes from October 25, 2001 as
submitted. Mr. O’Neil seconded. Upon voice vote, motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS: Assistant Plan Director Wolff will make revisions to the Rules of Procedure document and
send them to the members to review. Dr. Blumenfield would like the citizens to be better informed as to what the
time frames and what the processes are regarding issues and petitions they have with the city.
Assistant Plan Director Wolff informed the members that information for the Board of Appeals members will be
hand delivered to their residences
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this board, Mr. Conley moved to adjourn. Dr.
Blumenfield seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M.
Stella Dunahee, CPS
Recording Secretary
email: Mayor, Deputy City Clerk, Mayor's Secretary, Aldermen, Department Heads, Assistant
Plan Director
pc: Board of Appeals Members and Alternate Members, Mayor, Aldermen, Department Heads,
Deputy City Clerk, Assistant Plan Director, Planning Secretary, Mayor's Secretary, Receptionist