boam19960725
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON JULY 25, 1996.
PRESENT: Chairman O'Neil, Dan Schepp, Henry Schneiker, Heather Schuster, James Ross, and Carlos Trejo.
ABSENT:
Mike Brandt and Ed Herda
MINUTES: Henry Schneiker made a motion to approve the minutes of June 27, 1996, as presented. Dan Schepp seconded. Upon voice vote, the minutes of June 27, 1996, were passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Appeal #21-96 Roger Frycienski,W186 S6834 Jewel Crest, Muskego, requesting under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, three (3) variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning
Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (1) Building Location: Setbacks. Said regulation requires a minimum 25 foot setback from the road right-of-way. Petitioner seeks a 18 foot variance to
permit a detached garage located seven (7) feet from the road right-of-way; 2) Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3) A Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation requires
a minimum 5.2 foot offset. Petitioner seeks a four (4) foot variance to permit a detached garage located 1.2 feet from the northern neighboring property line; and 3) Chapter 17--Zoning
Ordinance: Section 5.07 (1) Open Space. Said regulation requires 66.7% of said lot to be left as open space. Petitioner seeks a 27.7% variance to permit only 39% of the lot to
be left as open space.
Mr. Trejo described the zoning of the parcel as RS-3/OLS, 10,000 S.F. Suburban Residence District in a Lake Shore Overlay and explained the zoning requirements for said district.
Mr. Trejo described the lot as a legal nonconforming lot.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Roger Frycienski and Mr. Robert Guay.
Mr. Frycienski explained to the Board that he would like to remove the existing garage and replace it with new structure with a basement space. He would like to span the basement
beyond the garage foot print and extend it 1.2 feet from the northern property line. This would give him more useable space. Mr. Frycienski would also like to connect the garage
to the home, which is only six (6) feet away. He would also like to enclose the deck on the lakeside and convert it into a sun room. He explained his hardship was the size of his
lot and location of existing structure.
Mr. Guay (neighbor residing one door south of Mr. Frycienski) explained that all improvements done by Mr. Frycienski have been a great improvement to the neighborhood.
Appeal #22-96
John E. Studt,S65 W13727 Sherwood Circle, Muskego, requesting under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, one (1) variance: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections
5.02 (3) Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation restricts the offset of any structure 20 feet from the rear property line. Petitioner seeks a four (4) foot offset variance
to build an attached deck pool 16' from the rear property line.
Mr. Trejo described the zoning for the parcel as RS-2, 15,000 S.F. Suburban Residence District and explained the zoning requirements for said district.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. and Mrs. Studt.
Mrs. Studt explained to the Board that last year they installed an above ground pool and placed it 21 feet from the rear property line. Due to safety concerns, Mr. Studt decided
to install a wrap around deck. When applying for permits, he was informed this would not be possible due that a 20' rear lot line offset that was required. Mr. Studt presented
a letter signed by three neighbors that border their property. The neighbors stated that everyone was in agreement and that there were no problems with proposed deck. Mr. and Mrs.
Studt stated their hardship being the existing location of the pool structure and safety concerns in regards to having the pool freely exposed.
*****************************************************************DELIBERATIONS
APPEAL # 21-96, Mr. Roger Frycienski, W186 S6834 Jewel Crest.
Mr. Schneiker made a motion to approve of variance #1, the setback variance, and variance #3, the open space requirement per defined conditions, while disapproving variance #2, the
offset from the northern property line. In regards to variance # 3, the conditions set were that the petitioner will be allowed to repave those areas disturbed during the construction
of basement and garage, but in regards to the deck enclosure, the Board felt not enough information was made available to decide what impacts the new construction would have to the
existing conditions of the deck and agreed to allow the petitioner 30 days to respond or this will become a closed issue. The hardship defined was the pre-existing conditions of
the lot and buildings and the narrowness of the lot. The Board felt the addition would conform to the general character of the area and would not pose a threat to public welfare
or safety. There was no hardship for variance #2 other than it being self-imposed. Mrs. Schuster seconded. Upon roll call vote the motion to grant two of the three variances was
approved unanimously.
APPEAL #22-96, Mr. John Studt, S65 W13727 Sherwood Circle.
Mr. Henry Schneiker made a motion to grant the variance as requested. The hardship defined is the pre-existing location of the pool and that the deck enclosure would enhance public
safety. Mr. Schepp seconded. Upon roll call vote, the motion to grant the variance was approved unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: Mrs. Schuster made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Schneiker seconded. With no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Motion
carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandi Asti
Recording Secretary