Zoning Board of Appeals- - Minutes 05/23/2002CITY OF
MUSKEGO
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FINDINGS OF FACTS
Brian D. Turk
Director of Planning
(262) 679-4136
A dimensional variance is hereby granted to Marc and Rosa Catalano, by the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego in Appeal # 03-2002 to permit 61-percent of
the lot area preserved as open space at S76 W 18420 Kingston Drive 1 Tax Key No.
2195.007, based upon the applicant having met the specifics of the City Ordinance with
respect to granting variances.
It was found that the variance preserve the intent of the Municipal Code because there
is practical difficulty associated with the legal non -conforming parcel complying with the
Zoning Code, there were exceptional conditions applying that do not generally apply to
other properties. More specifically, the granting of the variance provides the property
with rights enjoyed by properties in the immediate vicinity, the property rights of other
property owners are preserved, and no substantial detriment is caused to an adjacent
property.
Dated this 315t day of May 2002.
Signed
Dan Schepp
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
�,�
Signed /'�
Dustin J blff /
Assista t lan Di�t�Sr
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue - Box 749 - Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0749 - Fax (262) 679-5614
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGO
May 23, 2002
APPROVED
Meeting was called to order at 7:06 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Mr. David Conley, Dr. Barbara Blumenfield, Mr. Horst Schmidt and Assistant
Plan Director Dustin Wolff.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Schneiker
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The Secretary stated the meeting was noticed on May 16, 2002 in
accordance with Open meeting Laws.
Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #03-2002 Petitioner: Rosa Catalano, S76 W18420 Kingston Drive 1 Tax Key No.
2195.007 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17, Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions,
Petitioner seeks the following variances: Existing substandard Lots: 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.
Minimum open space for the property is required in the amount of 8,868 square feet (75% of the lot area). The
current open space is 1,727 square feet less than required, resulting in 60.4-percent of the lot area preserved as
open space. The Appellant is proposing to pave an additional 496 square feet of the lot for the installation of a pool
patio resulting in 56.2-percent of the lot area preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting an 18.8-percent
variance to the code requirement.
Dr, Blumenfield administered the oath to Marc and Rosa Catalano. Dr. Catalano explained they are requesting a
cement patio as recommended by the pool contractor. Dr. Catalano explained he chose not to use wood due to
maintenance and he did not want to use stone because of shifting and safety problems.
Mr. Wolff presented the City's opinion. The Catalano's built the largest home that could be built by code on the
parcel and did not take into consideration driveways or patios. The Planning Department determined that the
property already exceeds the total area of impervious surface allowed by Code. It was also determined that the
existing patio, sidewalk and driveway were installed without obtaining a permit. Staff is recommending the patio,
sidewalk be removed and the driveway allowed to remain which will require an 11 % variance from the code. While
the proposed pool does not count as impervious surface the cement patio around the pool does. Therefore the
permit could not be approved by the Planning Department.
Dr. Catalano wished to again be recognized by the Chairman. Dr. Catalano stated the building inspectors had been
out to do inspections and nothing was said as far as the cement being a violation of the codes. He also stated he
was not aware of any additional permits that needed to be taken out, but understood the home builder was to pull all
the necessary permits. The Catalano's explained they have a two-story structure on the patio that is attached to the
house, which they did receive a permit for. And if they are told to remove the concrete patio they could damage the
concrete the structure is built on.
Dr. Blumenfield explained the code exists to protect the lake. The more impervious surface on the property the
more water that runs off into the lake. A wood deck or stone with no mortar is not considered an impervious surface
and could be used around the pool. Dr. Blumenfield further explained that wanting to use concrete due to
maintenance or aesthetics does not constitute a hardship and the Board could not approve the proposal. Mr.
Conley stated the property could get full use without the pool because the pool is discretionary which then makes
the deck discretionary.
Chairman Schepp called for a recess at 7:41 PM.
Chairman Schepp called the meeting back to order at 7:47 PM.
ZBA Minutes
5123/02
Page 2
DELIBERATIONS:
APPEAL #03-2002 Mr. Conley moved to approve as submitted. Dr. Blumenfield seconded. After further discussion
Mr. Conley withdrew his motion and Dr. Blumenfield withdrew the second.
Dr. Blumenfield moved for approval in part of Appeal 03-2002 allowing an exception to the open space requirement
in the amount of 14% for the paved driveway and existing patio area and walkway to remain. Upon roll call vote the
motion was approved 4-0. Dr. Blumenfield explained that because of poor advice from past City staff at the time
the house was built the property owner should not be punished by having to remove the existing patio. Dr.
Blumenfield also stated that each petition that comes before the board is taken on a case -by -case basis and there
is no precedence to be set.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Dr. Blumenfield moved to approve the minutes from April 25, 2002 as submitted.
Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Upon voice vote, motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS: Mr. Wolff noted that there have been no replacements for the vacant seats on the Board.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this board, Mr. Schmidt moved to adjourn. Dr.
Blumenfield seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kellie Renk
Recording Secretary
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA
CITY OF MUSKEGO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 62.23 (7) (e) 6, that a Public
Hearing wiil be held in the Muskego Room at the Muskego City Hall, W 182 S8200 Racine
Avenue, at 7:00 P.M., Thursday, May 23, 2002, to consider the following petitions for appeals to
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskego:
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF CLOSED SESSION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego may
convene, upon passage of the proper motion, 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 a quasi-judicial hearing; said cases
being the above listed appeals.
The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session. Detailed
descriptions are available for public inspection at the Clerk's office. All interested
parties will be given an opportunity to be heard.
OLD BUSINESS
1 None
NEW BUSINESS
1. APPEAL #03-2002
Petitioner: Rose Catalano
Residence. S76 W18420 Kingston Drive 1 Tax Key No. 2195.007
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoninq Ordinance: Section
3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variances:
Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.08 Existing Substandard Lots
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.
Minimum open space for the property is required in the amount of 8,868 square feet (75%
of the lot area). The current open space is 1,727 square feet less than required, resulting
in 60.4-percent of the lot area preserved as open space). The Appellant is proposing to
pave an additional 496 square feet of the lot for the installation of a pool patio resulting in
56.2-percent of the lot area preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting an
18.8-percent variance to the Code requirement.
ZBA 5/23/2002
Page 2
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 25, 2002 MEETING.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
ADJOURN
It is possible that members of and possibly a quorum of members of other governmental bodies of
the municipality may be in attendance at the above -stated meeting to gather information; no
action will be taken by any governmental body at the above -stated meeting other than the
governmental body specifically referred to above in this notice.
Also, upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled
individuals through appropriate aids and services. For additional information or to request this
service, contact Jean K. Marenda, 0erk-Treasurer at Muskego City Hall, (262) 679-5625.
City of Muskego
Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 03-2002
For the meeting of. May 23, 2002
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
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.
APPELLANT: Rosa and Marc Catalano
LOCATION: S76 W18420 Kingston Drive 1 Tax Key No. 2195.007
SW '/, Section 9
PREPARED BY: Dustin Wolff
BACKGROUND
The petitioner seeks an exception to the open space requirement for the district.
Minimum open space for the property is required in the amount of 8,868 square feet (75% of the
lot area) The current open space is 1,727 square feet less than required, resulting in 60.4
percent of the lot area preserved as open space). The Appellant is proposing to pave an
additional 496 square feet of the lot for the installation of a pool patio resulting in 56 2 percent of
the lot area preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting an 18.8 percent variance to the
Code requirement.
DISCUSSION
The petitioner submitted a permit application to install an in -ground pool During the review it was
determined by the Planning Department that the parcel exceeds the total area of impervious
surface allowed by Code. Further review determined that the property owners installed patios,
sidewalks, and the driveway without obtaining the proper permit for such work from the Planning
Department. While the proposed pool does not count as impervious surface, the patio/deck
surrounding the pool does As such, the Planning Department could not approve the permit.
The petitioner's home was designed to maximize the size allowed on the lot, and it seems no
consideration was made for patios, walks, and drives. 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 surrounding properties, and further the
Best Management Practices and Policies of the City by reducing sedimentation in run-off. As
such, the Board has ruled favorably in matters regarding open space variances to allow paved
driveways Staff concurs with this policy.
In regards to the pool deck and the patio in the rear yard, Staff does not believe the proposal
meets the criteria for establishing hardship. Further, there is no practical difficulty in complying
with the Code. The appellant conducted work without the proper permits. As explained
previously, the Planning Department would not have issues permits for the existing patio.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Approval in part of Appeal 03-2002, allowing an 11.1-percent exception to the open space
area required for the property in order to maintain the paved driveway.
Denial in part of Appeal 03-2002, requiring the removal of illegal non -conforming patio
areas and prohibiting installation of the proposed paved patio.
Appeal # 03-2002
ZBA 5-23-2002
Page 2
.f-,d.a.Z-
G.r r.+et.an� S7oo !'i'/ ZQ /(C..✓4sTom•✓ 49Z .
�o T •- /i�zy �
owe= o 4w
�ryt= •' 2 �o�'•N
,ssi►,�oo•h •. 336 �
�x isri.✓c�n rya ' � ��3 `� �3! �,
f �o4S�p •' �%6
V10
Y.44 KA 14or
�,ccN • /5�s �
'PA r�o •' Sao �
7t.z
Z070
z7s_ i i
CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION FOR DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE
Appellant's Name:. miaf( -� Rkx c— ccli (co U
Subject Property Address: S f& W I Lj a (> KloG
Tetephone: Day: Ab,gT(` Od-W
Property Zoning: k ,[r- 3� L~S
Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable):
wn Lessee
Evening: YOMe--
Tax Key: x ZI9.S. 007
Other
Date inspector denied zoning permit: 4 ` z3- 0 Z o sry
Requesting variance to Code Section 17: 5 0Y 7 5 ?o opv,, svwt rPci.fcd
A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in
practical difficulty and
hardship because:
v
k
u N, s�� 4,
- - . 4I30 + �i
Lk St4,� _t%wrcLly v,.,1cA cco,%.-L !'c�,ttl� �..� Nr �c]gcc�ti/l, Cv JC16-Vo .
The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in accord
with the spirit of the code because: g4l 'do
t lend ( c4it"
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public
welfare because: + -5tAXcLk Ao 1At
S:ICITYHALLIZBA1Applicabons\ZBA-Dimensional Appeal AppGption.doc
Last printed 1/21/02 9:14 AM
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE REQUESTS
At the direction of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the following information is required to
be submitted with the application:
■ For any variance pertaining to a parcel of land, a Plat of Survey, prepared by a
Registered Land Surveyor, must be submitted. The Plat of Survey must be
dated, with no time requirements, and include the original seal of the surveyor.
Plat of Survey must contain the following:
1. The parcel in question with dimensions, bearings and a description of the
exterior boundaries.
2. Abutting streets, properties, lakes and/or rivers, etc.
3. Location and size (with dimensions and area) of any existing buildings or
structures.
4. Ordinary High-water Mark, 100-year Flood Elevation, 2-foot about the 100-
year Flood Elevation, Easements, etc.
6. Location and size of culverts, ditches, trees, wells, septic system, retaining
walls, driveways, sidewalks, patios, or any other items pertinent to the
variance requested —including area calculations.
6. Elevations at corners of parcel, building corners, grade breaks and any other
elevations pertinent to the variance requested.
7. Proposed building, structure or appurtenance for which the variance is being
requested.
■ The scaled construction drawings of the appurtenance, addition, or structure for
which the variance is being requested.
■ Fee in the amount of $200.00 Account # 100.01.18.03.4327
SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT DATE
SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if different)
DATE
PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT ANY LEGAL, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE
FEES INCURRED BY THE CITY, IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING A PROPOSAL OR
APPLICATION, BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS FEE SCHEDULE, WILL BE CHARGED
BACK TO THE PETITIONER 1 APPLICANT / OWNER 1 DEVELOPER FOR 100%
RECOVERY. (Ch. 5.0851Ord. #909)
S:ICITYHALL\ZBAlAppiicationslZBA-Dimensional Appeal Applicabon.doc
Last printed 4/5J2002 2:17 PM
U
10
co
LO
C'3
�
ad
0
W
x
w
>-.
i--r
t/]
C\2
>
z
z
ti
X
W
d
F
�
Cif
Cf)
w
O
E-4
iX
U
�
. E-4
z
U
�
O
'
i`
�
O
z
o
vi
W
c�
�+
U
kO
tl-
O
CV
d-J
4 w
O O
CL �
C 4-
.� a
r-
U
0 Q�
Z �
Z
d m
, 4 —
N
� W
in C]
CQ CV
V)
z Q w
O CD .Z C
VI ]� L27 V1
� C)
n O V
Z CFi •+-
C71 O 3
(3)
X CN O
oz - a
M Q L.) c
t— w :3
cn cn o
� Z U
3 > r4
• - �C O ro
Lil , i
1 Q Lo V 0
w Z ar
2- O
Q F'to O 3 ra
yLn 3:
Z
Z.
0
CL
O a
:� U
w
� Q O
r
� ^ J W
vJ �
� r
r � �
Ire W�
rrQ i i
v
� C c
• 8 d • e
� 4 0
a e
p
l
v
e 4 �
a
4 -• �
b o 4
z: Nll;�k
• 4 O °
lb
�
p
4
r
v
4
I
a • t p
rb-0�ab
C h b
� O
y a l
O
p pa
4 L ti p
m A
��\\\Q\\\111111141111411z1111l111/,
�Oni��ilnirrhm..
7
0