Loading...
ZBA-Minutes 03-1989May 2, 1989 Mr. Gerald R. Loebel W181 S9134 Parker Drive Muskego, WI 53150 Dear Mr. Roskos: The Board of Appeals wishes to advise you that they have upheld the decision of Gerald P. Lee, administrative officer, and you have the remainder of your 6 month extension to pursue other options. Thank you. Sincerely, BOARD OF APPEALS Cheryl Schmidt CC: Chairman Gerald Fohr cc: Atty. Hudec S66 W14512 JenesviNe Rd., Tess Corners, Muskego, Wis. 33150 a 1414) 422-1050 L� . Page 3, BOA Minutes of 4/27/89 APPEAL 10-89 (cont.) permitted to be built in that location? Mr. Lee responded that the house should have been moved back and the garage built in front as the lot is 46' wide. Mr. Maranowicz stated that he has a contract signed for this work. Mr. Gehling, whose mother Mary Gehling lives next door at S76 W18173 Janesville Road, was present and stated that the driveways are side by side and his mother was concerned about the drainage. At 9:10 P.M. the Vice Chairman Pro Tem heard a request from Mr. & Mrs. Robert White, S99 W12953 Loomis Road, who felt they were aggrieved neighbors of Ronald Peuse, who had his Appeal 23-88 heard before the Board of Appeals on 12/8/88. The variance had been granted for a 3' offset variance to allow an existing driveway to remain within the offset area. They questioned whether there could be a re -appeal. Mr. Lee responded that he would research the position of the Board for a re -appeal, but felt that if it was within 1 year of the variance being granted, it could not be reheard without new evidence being submitted. This matter could be taken to the Circuit Court and if the Board wishes to react to the testimony and after it was given, thev could at a later date. Mrs. White also felt that the Minutes of December 8, 1988 were incorrect as to the hardship being stated as the area defined driveway when it really is a "turn -around". The Board will look into this matter. The Board took a five minute recess. Mr. Berken moved to go into Closed Session pursuant to Section 19.85 (1) (a) of the State Statutes for the purpose of deliberating concerning cases which were the subject of aquasidudicial hearing: said cases being the above listed appeals. Mr. O'Neil seconded and the motion carried. The Board of econvened into open session at 9:20 P.M. APPEAL 3-89 Mr.,O'Neil moved to uphold the decision of G rald P. Lee, the administrative officer, and give Mr. Loebel t e remainder of the 6 Months extension to pursue other op ions. Mr. Pion seconded and the motion carried. APPEAL 5-89 Mr. Berken moved to approve the appeal as submitted. The hardship is the narrow width of the lot, size of the lot and the closeness of the buildings. The garage is to be firewalled. Mr. O'Neil seconded and the motion carried. 0 APPEAL 6-89 - Withdrawn. CITY OF MUSK -EGO BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPE�-.LS MEETING HELD ON April 27, 1989. Vice Chairman Pro Tem Tho-nas Rerken called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: - Vice Chairman Pro Tem Thomas Berken, Linda Koester, Terry O'Neil, Donald Pionek, and Director Gerald Lee. ABSENT: - Chairman Gerald Fohr, Vice -Chairman Lloyd Erno, and Darryl Rowinski. MINUTES: - Mr. Pionek moved to approve the Minutes of January 26, 1989. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. v APPEAL 3-89 - GERALD LOEBEL Vice Chairman Pro Tem Thomas Berken stated that this was a rehearing to clarify a previous appeal for industrial use of residentially zoned property and an appeal fron an administrative officer. Attv. Patrick Hudec presented Mr. Loebel's case giving the background of the business and the request for industrial use o` residentially zoned property. Mr. Loebel feels the business doesn't have a negative it -pact on the neighborhood. Mr. Lee responded that this case is bevond the powers of the Board of Appeals but could grant an extension of time. He referred to a letter he had received from the Citv Attorney dated February 21, 1989 upholding his decision. Mr. Lee feels it is up to the courts to decide and suggests that the Board of Appeals denv manufacturing use of the property. Atty. Hudec presented letters with three signatures of Mr. Loebel's neighbors, who are in favor of allowing his business use. There was further discussion by all concerned parties. APPEAL 5-89 - JOH`J ROSKOS Mr. Roskos appeared before the Board to request a 4' variance to construct an addition to the residence that would place the dwelling 6' from garage. He stated that it would be a 14' x 4' wide addition and he needs room for an entryway. Mr. Lee stated that he doesn't need a height variance, but needs a firewall to meet Building Code regulations. APPEAL 6-89 - Was withdrawn at the request of Mr. & Mrs. Hartung. APPEAL 7-89 - TERRY PETERSON Mr. Peterson appeareA before the Board to request a 4 3/4 offset variance and a size variance of 209 square feet to construct a detached garage. He would have to fill in his yard to construct the garage fiirther back in his vard. He needs the 3-car garage for storage. `sir. Lee stated that the zoning is RS2/OOS which only allows a age 3, RjA Minutes .` 4/27/89 APPEAT 10-�9 (con`.) permitted to he built in that location? Mr. Lee responded that the house should have been moved back and the garage built in front as the lot is 46' wide. Mr. Maranowicz stated that he has a contract signed for this work. Mr. Gehling, whose mother Mary Gehling lives next door at S76 W18173 Janesville Road, was present and stated that the driveways are side by side and his mother was concerned about the drainage. At 9:10 P.X. the Vice Chairman Pro Tem heard a request from Mr. Mrs. Robert_ White, S99 W12953 Loomis Road, who felt they were aggrieved neighbors of Ronald Peuse, who had his Appeal 23-88 heard before the Board of Appeals on 12/8/88. The variance had been granted for a 3' offset variance to allow an existing driveway to remain within the offset area. Thev questioned whether there could he a re -appeal. Mr. Lee responded that he would research the position of the Board for a re -appeal, but felt that if it was within 1 year of the variance being granted, it could not be reheard without new evidence being submitted. This matter could he taken to the Circuit Court and if the Board wishes to react to the testimony and after it was given, t_hev could at a later date. Mrs. White also felt that the Minutes of December 8, 1988 were incorrect as to the hardship being stared as the area defined driveway when it really is a "turn -around". The Board will look into this matter. The Board took a five minute recess. Mr. Berken moved to go into Closed Session pursuant to Section 19.85 (1) (a) of the State Statutes for the purpose of deliberating concerning cases which were the subject of aquasidudicial hearing: said cases being the above listed appeals. Mr. O'Neil seconded and the motion carried. The Board of Appeals reconvened into open session at 9:20 P.M. APPEAL 3-89 Mr. O'Neil moved to uphold the decision of Gerald P. Lee, the administrative officer, and give Mr. Loebel the remainder of the 6 months extension to pursue other options. fir. Pionek seconded and the motion carried. APPEAL 5-89 Mr. Berken moved to approve the appeal as submitted. The hardship is the narrow width of the lot, size of the lot and the closeness of the buildings. The garaee is to be firewalled. Mr. O'Neil seconded and the motion carried. APPEAL 6-89 - Withdrawn. DALE W.ARENZ DONALD S. MOLTER. JR. JOHN P. MACY, COURT COMMISSIONER H. STANLEY RIFFLE, COURT COMMISSIONER ERIC O. SCHLIETER Mr. Gene Kovacs Assistant Director CITY OF MUSKEGO P. O. Box 903 Muskego, WI 53150 LAW OFFICE5 OF ARENZ, MOLTER, MACY & RIFFLE, S.C. 720 N. EAST AVENUE P.O. BOX 1348 WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN 53187-1348 February 9, 1989 Re: Loebel/Board of Appeals Decision Dear Mr. Kovacs: TELEPHONE 548-1340 FACSIMILE 548.9211 AREA CODE 414 We are in receipt of your letter dated February 7, 1989 with the enclosures. Please be advised that Don is on vacation until February 15, 1989. Upon his return to the office, your letter will be brought to his attention. If you feel that this cannot wait until Don returns, please contact me and I will see if another attorney in our office would be available to review the same. Very truly yours, ARENZ, MOLTER, MACY & RIFFLE, S.C. .�'/uY- 4 Pauline M. Wernig� Secretary to Donald S. Molter, Jr. DALE W. ARENZ DONALD S. MOLTER, JR. JOHN P. MACY, COURT COMMISSIONER H. STANLEY RIFFLE COURT COMMISSIONER ERIC O. SCHLIETER Mr. Gene Kovacs Assistant Director CITY OF MUSKEGO P. 0. Box 903 Muskego, WI 53150 LAW OFFICES OF ARENZ, MOLTER, MACY & RIFFLE, S.C. 720 N. EAST AVENUE P.O. BOX 1348 WAUKESHA. WISCONSIN 53187-1348 February 21, 1989 Re: Loebel/Board of Appeals Decision Dear Gene: TELEPHONE 548-1340 FACSIMILE 548-9211 AREA CODE 414 Pursuant to our conferences of February 16, 1989, your earlier correspondence to me and later conferences, I have reviewed the situation in the above -mentioned matter and have the following comments: 1. From the application sent to me dated 1-10-89, it appears that a variance was requested and the decision indicates an approval on the form dated 1-26-89. However, the written minutes and decision of the Board indicates that, in fact, no action was taken on a variance from the requirements of the zoning, but, apparently, the Board attempted to make a decision that the petitioner had six months to cease the alleged manufacturing activity at the site. 2. I think the Board should hold further proceedings concerning this matter in order to clarify the issue before it and make clear what its decision is. 3. It appears that the real issue before the Board is whether or not the use of the property is in the conformity of the zoning. If it is, that should be the decision of the Board and, apparently, no further proceedings would be required. 4. If the Board deems that the decision of Gerry Lee was correct, then citations could be issued by the Building Department because the use would be illegal. 5. I also draw your attention to Muskego Zoning Ordinance 17.3.08(3)(D) which requires a decision of the Board of Appeals LAW OFFICES OF ARENZ, MOLTER, MACY & RIFFLE, S. C. Mr. Gene Kovacs -2- February 21, 1989 to be in writing within 15 days after the completion of the hearing. 6. I also recommend that if the Board upholds the decision of Gerry Lee, that it does not issue an order prohibiting the activity, but merely indicates that it is upholding Gerry Lee's position and then it would be up to Gerry Lee as to whether or not he would issue a citation for violation. In that manner, if a citation was issued, a Court would make the ultimate decision. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ARENZ ; MOLTE/,�, MAiCY & RIFFLE, S.C. Doria&d Aolter,,1 Jr. DSM/pw CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON January 26, 1989. Chairman Gerald Fohr called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: - Chairman Gerald Fohr, Lloyd Erno, Terry O'Neil Mr. Donald Pionek, Mr. Darryl Rowinski and Assistant Director Gene Kovacs appearing for Director Lee. ABSENT: - Thomas Berken and Linda Koester and Director Lee. MINUTES: Mr. Erno moved to adopt the minutes of the December 8, 1988 meeting. Mr. O'Neil seconded and the motion carried with a voice vote. APPEAL 21-88 - JIM TAYLOR Mr. Taylor appeared before the Board to request a offset variance; 17' setback variance; 2 1/2' separation variance; 6 1/2' height variance to construct a garage and rec. room. Mr. O'Neil asked Mr. Taylor if he would consider attaching the garage to the house? Mr. Erno questioned whether there would be an overhang on the roof and if gutters would be provided to prevent water from draining onto his neighbors's property. It was mentioned that a garage with a breezeway constructed would be an option, but would only eliminate the need for one variance. It would still be near the roadway. Mr. Erno felt if it was attached to the 2-story house, the rec. room would have access to the house for the bathrooms, etc. Chairman Fohr asked if the gas meter, phone and electric would have to be moved? Mr. Taylor said they would. APPEAL 22-88 - POBLOCKI & SONS CO. Jim Eckel and Tom Kratsch o St. Francis Savings & Loan appeared before the Board to request a variance from the Plan Commission decision denying architectural approval of the reader board signage to allow 21 square feet of signage on an existing nonconforming sign. Mr. Kovacs stated that this appeal was postponed from the Board's December 8, 1988 meeting. The Plan Commission review of the signage was denied as they felt it was a nonconforming sign and exceeding the zoning requirment for signage. Mr. Eckel stated that they are allowed 52-53 square feet for the length of their building; they have 73' of which 12 1/2' is included in the time and temperature. According to the code, based on the size of the building, they could put the sign on the side of their building. They prefer to put the sign on the freestanding post to be more architecturally pleasing. They would maintain the sign. Mr. Eckel passed out pictures to the members showing Page 2 - B'. of Appeals 1/26/89 other savings and loan branches. He felt that thev support the community with the "Green Up" project and the sign would be with changeable letters and not be flashing. Mr. Rowinski asked how many savings and loan branches are erecting reader board signs? Mr. Eckel responded 6 out of 11 at the present time. Mr. O'Neil questioned what the Plan Commission minutes stated. Mr. Bill Simons was also present and stated that since this is a commercial zone it should be permitted. He felt St. Francis Savings & Loan has been good for the community. APPEAL 1-89 - WILLIA.M GEBHARD Mr. Gebhard appeared before the Board to request a 3offset variance from the west lot line to install a driveway. Mr. Gebhard stated that he did not know about the 3' setback. Mr. Kovacs stated that he was out to view the driveway and that it has a stone base, is approximately 10' wide, and there is a need to have it hard surfaced. Mr. Gebhard responded that he intended to pave it. Mr. Erno commented that the permits should tell the people that they must be 3' from the lot line. It would help with new home construction. Mr. Erno stated that he lives next door to Mr. Gebhard and has no objection to the driveway being placed where it is. Mr. Gebhard mentioned that his slab approach is already in and the driveway would line up. APPEAL 2-89 - MUSKEGO MARINE Mr. Simons appeared before the BoarJ on behalf of Mr. Langfeldt, who is requesting a 9' offset variance for an existing storage shed to remain 1' from the lot line. Mr. Kovacs stated that the shed was approximately 12' x 20' and used for business storage of their products (gas cans, etc.). No permit was obtained. There are numerous boats and any outdoor storage is getting increasingly difficult. Mr. Erno questioned whether in the future there would be a problem if the other property owner wished to put up a structure? He would like to see a time limit imposed. Mr. Simons commented that the shed was moveable and permits would be taken out once advised. Mr. Pionek asked if the owner leased space for boat storage? The answer was yes. APPEAL 3-89 - GERALD LOEBEL Mr. Loebel appeared before the Board requesting an appeal from an administrative officer. Mr. Kovacs stated that this is R-1 zoning which is Residential. Mr. Loebel was sent a letter by Mr. Lee informing him that he had violated a city zoning ordinance by manufacturing in one of the buildings, and that there were a number of commercial vehicles not approved at that site. He does have a Conditional Use Grant for indoor storage of recreational equipment. He was given 10 days to stop violating. Mr. Loebel came into the Department of Building Inspection to discuss that matter with Gerry Lee. Mr. Lee informed him that he could go before the Plan Commission for rezoning to Commercial or Industrial Use or go before the Board of Appeals to get a Page 3 -Board of Appeals 1 /26/89 varies_ -ice Y:=:ng. The ad-inistrative decision did not deal with the use of he property --- it is the Plan Commission's authority. Mr. Loebel spoke about his business. He stated that he has been living there since 1973 and since 1982 has been manufacturing. Since 1986 he has paid Industrial real estate xes. He feels he is not in violation. The business is his sole support of his family and he runs a clean business. The city has known about his business for many years, as an electrical permit was taken out and the property was inspected. He also is certified by the State of Wisconsin. John Johnson, a neighor to the north, was present to give his views. He stated that he was the first house to build in the area, and feels the business is not conducive to the residential district and would limit his property value. He felt 'sir. Loebel should have his business in the Industrial Park. Mr. Loebel responded that he has 7 acres and would bring in people to verify his request. Judy Wachowak, who owns land in the area and plans to build a house there in the spring, voiced her desire to see it remain residential zoning. Chairman Fohr commented that Parker Drive has several masons, sewer contractors, a dog kennel, and a landfill in the area. Odie Iwaskiewicz, a neighbor, stated she would like to see the area remain residential and not have his business expand. Larry Wachowiak, a neighbor, commented that he could bring his truck business into the area, but he would like to see the area remain residential. Mr. Loebel again stated that the city had given him verbal approval. When asked if he would be relocating his business? He responded that he didn't know when. He reiterated the fact that he has paid Industrial taxes for the past two years and presented his tax bill. Chairman Fohr declared a five minute recess. The Board of Appeals reconvened into open session. APPEAL 21-88 After some discussion Mr. Erno moved to deny the appea as submitted but grant an appeal with the following changes: 1) That to construct a 2-story garage, the building shall be re -positioned on the lot such that it will be in alignment with the south offset of the existing house. 2) That the garage shall be attached to the house by a breezeway. 3) That the garage dimensions be 20' x 22'. The hardship is the location of the existing house on the property and the limited land area. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. Page 4 - Board of Appeals 1/26/89 APPEAL 22-88 Mr. O'Neil moved to approve the appeal as submitted or a variance from the Plan Commission decision denying architectural approval of reader board signage on an existing nonconforming sign and for a 21 square foot signage variance. The hardship is the limited sign area and portion of existing signage is only used for time and temperature and not for advertising. Mr. Pionek seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. APPEAL 1-89 Mr. 0 Neil moved to approve the appeal as submitted. The hardship being the pre-existing gravel driveway. Mr. Fohr seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. APPEAL 2-89 Mr. Fohr moved to deny the appeal as requested but grant an appeal with the following changes: 1) a 6 month variance to find alternate location for the shed on site to meet offset requirements. 2) That the applicant make application to the Building Inspection Department for the shed permit and pay the required fees. The hardship is the temporary lack of space. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. APPEAL 3-89 Mr. Rowinski moved to approve the appeal as submitted granting the applicant a variance from the 10 day cease and desist order from the administrative officer and granting the applicant a six month extension of time to allow him time to pursue other options and to allow time for the city to obtain a review and opinion for the City Attorney regarding this matter. The Board requested Mr. Loebel come before the Board of Appeals for review at the end of the 6 month time period. The hardship being that 10 days is not enough time to pursue other options. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. O'Neil moved to adjourn at 11:00 P.M. Mr. Erno seconded and the motion carried with a voice vote. Respectfully Submitted Cheryl Schmidt Recording Secretary /cs February 7, 1989 Attorney Don Molter 916 Clinton Street P.O. Box 1348 Waukesha, WI 53187-1348 Dear Don: The Board of Appeals requested review and opinion regarding a their last meeting. that I contact you to obtain a case which came before them at Enclosed is a brief history and case summary along with a location map of the property. Please contact me if you require any additional information or material. Sincerely, Gene Kovacs Assistant Director GK:cds Enc. CASE BACKGROUND - Mr. Gerald Loebel: owner of property addressed W181 S9134 Parker Drive. - Property is Zoned R-1. - Following complaints by neighboring property owners, it was determined that Mr. Loebel was conducting a commercial or industrial use on property zoned residential. - December 28, 1988 - Letter from Gerry Lee to Mr. Loebel to cease and desist within 10 days. (copy attached) - Mr. Loebel & Gerry Lee met to discuss the problem on January 5, 1989. Gerry informed him of his options. See Board of Appeals memo attached. - Mr. Loebel made application to the Board to he reviewed at their meeting scheduled for January 26, 1989. He requested an appeal from an administrative officer's cease and desist order of 10 days. - Mr. Loebel appeared at the meeting and stated: 1. He started the business in 1982 (manufacturing of plumbing fixtures -- molded), after receiving verbal permission from Mr. Dan Nowak, the building inspector at that time. Mr. Loebel contends that Mr. Nowak interpreted the business was appropriate as a home occupation within that zone district and that a permit was not necessary. Department records do not provide any evidence of Mr. Nowak's approval. 2. He stated that Mr. Wayne Jensen, former plumbing inspector, was aware of the business and did not mention a problem. There is no evidence indicating this in our records. 3. He stated that a portion of his property has been assessed as commercial during the time of operation, thereby identifying the operation at that location. 4. He stated that Electrical Permits were issued to him for installation of his business equipment.(200 amp service) Our records show an electrical permit issued for a 200 amp service, but do not identify the use of the service. A 200 amp service could be installed for residential purposes. 5. He requested that he be allowed to continue his business there. He has intentions of moving to a new location in the future, but could not give any time frame. Page 2 Atty. Don Molter Re: W181 S9134 Parker Drive, Muskego, WI February 7, 1989 - The Board granted a variance from the 10 day cease and desist order. (see attached) A 6 month extension of time was given to him. He is to come before the Board following the 6 month extension. - There were residents of the area at the hearing voicing their concerns regarding the business in a residential area. - Mr. Loebel was granted a conditional use grant in 1973 to allow the indoor storage of recreational equipment only (boats, house trailer and snowmobiles). - Mr. Loebel was denied an expansion of the conditional use grant in 1977. It was his intent to add more storage structures. It was the Plan Commission's decision that the expansion would not fit the intent of the residential zoning of the area. CITY OF MUSKEGO W182 S8200 RACINE AVENUE MUSKEGO, WISCONSIN 53150 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Appeals FROM: Gerald P.Lee DATE: 1/6/89 RE: Appeal Provisions The Zoning Ordinance 3.08 Appeal Provisions Section (1) gives any person aggrieved or affected by a decision of the administrative officer the right to appeal such decision to a Board of Appeals, provided such appeal falls within the classification as set forth under the powers of the Appeal Board. The Board of Appeals is authorized by Section 62.23(7)e of the statutes to hear appeals in matters relating to All Zoning Ordinances. The Board because it acts somewhat like a court is called a "quasi-judicial" body. The D.N.R. handbook for plan commissioners & appeal boards states that "Use" variance should not be granted by the board. A change in use requires a zoning amen m—ent. By letter sent to the appealant, I gave him 10 days to cease h desist from his manufacturing activity. He has stated that he was in process of looking for another location. He was informed of the options that were available to him as I see them, (1) Petition for rezoning. (2) Submit an application to the Board of Appeals as an aggrieved person or (3) Be cited for violation of a city ordinance and let the judge decide. The appellant chose to submit an application to the Board of Appeals so that he could present his reasons why he thinks, the order is unreasonable. December 28, 1988 Gerald Loebel W181 S9134 Parker Dr. Muskego WI 53150 Dear Sir: This letter is to inform you that you are in violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. You are presently zoned R-1 (residential). In 1973 you were granted a Conditional Use for indoor storage of recreational equipment. An inspection was made which revealed that you are manufacturing in one of the buildings. That use is not permitted in a residential district. There also appears to be another business which requires commercial equipment parked along the north side of the building you are using in your manufacturing business. You will be given 10 days from the date of this letter to cease h desist from these actions or a citation will be issued. Yours truly, Gerald P.Lee, Director Planning & Development cc: Mayor Wayne Salentine Public Safetv Committee GPL/dw