ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES - 6/24/2010
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES approved
CITY OF MUSKEGO
JUNE 24, 2010
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.
Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENT: Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Dr. Barbara Blumenfield, Mr. William Le Doux, Mr.
Aaron Robertson, and Planner Adam Trzebiatowski.
ABSENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Dr. Russell Kashian, and Mr. Richard Ristow.
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed on June 17,
2010 in accordance with open meeting laws.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. APPEAL #02-2010
Petitioner: Paul Diekfuss
Property: S74 W14754 Lynn Drive / Tax Key No. 2203.008
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 Zoning
Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variance:
Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 - Building Location
(1) Location Restricted: No building shall be hereafter erected,
structurally altered or relocated on a lot except in conformity with the
following locational regulations as hereinafter specified for the district
in which it is located.
A setback of 40-feet is required from the front lot line on the above mentioned lot. The
petitioner seeks a setback of 32.02-feet from the front lot line to permit an addition onto
their existing home, and is therefore requesting a 7.98-foot variance from the front lot
line setback.
Dr. Blumenfield swore in Paul Diekfuss and Planner Trzebiatowski. Mr. Diekfuss explained he
would like to add a third bedroom with a bathroom on to the existing house. He now has three
daughters and the house is getting small. Mr. Diekfuss had a contractor look at the house and
was told he could not add a second floor because the house would not hold it, and he cannot go
out the back because there would be no room for a bedroom door off the kitchen. Mr. Diekfuss
further explained that all the utilities are located of the back of the house and would have to be
moved.
Mr. Schneiker explained that cost cannot be taken into consideration when determining a
hardship.
Dr. Blumenfield questioned if Mr. Diekfuss checked into the costs for relocating the utilities. Mr.
Diekfuss stated he did not because he didn’t feel that going out the back of the house would be
an option. Dr. Blumenfield suggested converting the existing kitchen into a bedroom and adding
on a new kitchen. Dr. Blumenfield explained that a hardship needs to be based on the property
and the land or something that cannot be moved or would cause harm or be a safety concern.
ZBA Minutes
6/24/2010
Page 2
Mr. Schneiker added that the City’s objective is to maintain conformity and to eventually
eliminate the nonconforming properties.
Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City’s opinion based on the Zoning Code. Mr. Trzebiatowski
explained the petitioner is planning an addition of a bedroom and a bathroom onto their existing
home. The property currently contains a house with a detached garage and a shed. A setback
of 40-feet is required from the front lot line. The petitioner seeks a setback of 32.02 and is
requesting a 7.98-foot variance from the front lot line. The request is within the requirements of
15-feet from the side lot line. This property is not a corner lot because the property to the east
is a vacant lot. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained there are other options such as: constructing the
addition off the rear of the house or towards the driveway to the west, a second floor addition,
connecting the house to the garage, or reconfiguring the shape of the addition. The affect on
the roofline should be the same if the addition were on the front or back of the house. Mr.
Trzebiatowski noted that financial loss is not a valid hardship and permits come in daily where
utilities need to be relocated. Based upon this information, staff respectfully recommends denial
of Appeal 02-2010; citing that the variance does not preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance
because there are not exceptional conditions applying to the parcel that do not apply to other
properties, especially since the existing home sits on a fairly large lot with plenty of distance
from the west and north lot lines and there is also the option to make the addition smaller or
reconfigured.
Mr. Schneiker suggesting reconstructing roofline and adding dormers to allow for a second
story. Mr. LeDoux also suggested making the kitchen larger to 20’ x 24’ and constructing the
addition off the back.
Dr. Blumenfield explained there are other options that could fit within the City’s requirements.
Dr. Blumenfield questioned if Mr. Diekfuss received any other options from an architect. Mr.
Diekfuss stated he did not.
DELIBERATIONS
Appeal #02-2010 – Mr. Schneiker moved to approve Appeal #02-2010 as submitted. Dr.
Blumenfield seconded. Dr. Blumenfield explained the Board is bound by State Statutes to
base approval on a valid hardship. Looking at the aerial view of the neighborhood everyone
else is in line with the setback. To modify the requirements without a hardship could not be
supported or justified. There are other options that could be explored. Upon a roll call vote;
APPEAL #02-2010 is DENIED unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Dr. Blumenfield moved to approve the minutes of March 25,
2010. Mr. Le Doux seconded. Upon a voice vote, minutes were approved unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS: None.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Mr. Schneiker moved to
adjourn. Dr. Blumenfield seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 7:37 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kellie McMullen
Recording Secretary