Zoning Board of Appeals 06-1998May 29, 1998
Ms. Debra Berens
S75 W18650 Kingston Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
RE: Appeal #6-98
Dear Ms. Berens:
The Board of Appeals wishes to advise your appeal from Chapter 17, Section 5.02(2), Building Location
regarding your garage location 11 feet from Kingston Drive right-of-way, was granted.
Your appeal from Chapter 17, section 5.02(2), Building Location regarding your garage location 11 feet from
the base setback line, was granted.
Your appeal from Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance, Section 5.02(3) Building location; offset seeking a 1 foot
variance to place a new accessory structure four (4) feet from the west long line was denied due to lack of
hardship.
Your appeal from Chapter 17, Section 4.05(2) CA, seeking a 134 square foot variance to construct a 768 square
foot accessory building was denied due to lack of hardship.
Your appeal from Chapter 17, Section 5.02(3) Building location request to construct a deck 3.5 feet from the
west lot line was granted as requested.
Please be advised a building and zoning permit are required prior to commencing construction on your property.
Please also be advised, any person in opposition of the variance being granted has 30 days to appeal the Board
of Appeal's decision with the Waukesha County Circuit Court and may place on your project in jeopardy.
Should you have any questions, please contact Carlos Trejo at 679-5674.
Sincerely,
Susan J. Schroeder
Recording Secretary
Appeal #06-98
Debra Berens
S75 W 18650 Kingston Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
Tax Key No. 2195.031,002
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the
following five (5) variances:
ON THE ACCESSORY BUILDING
1. Chapter 17--Zonin;a_Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected,
structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a
14 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 11 feet from the Kingston Drive right-of-way. (zoning
requirement is 25 feet)
2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected,
structurally altered or relocated on a lot closer than 20 feet to the base setback line. Petitioner seeks a 9 foot
variance to place a new accessory structure 11 feet from the base setback line
3. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.1 Building Location: Offsets. No structure shall be erected,
structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a
one (1) foot variance to place a new accessory structure four (4) feet from the west lot Iine. (zoning requirement is
five (5) feet)
4. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.05 (2) CA, Accessory Uses and Structures, Permanent Structures. Said
regulation states no detached private garage shall have a floor area greater than 60% of the floor area of the
principal building on the lot. Petitioner seeks a 134 square foot variance to construct a 768 square foot accessory
building. (zoning requirement is 634 s.f.)
ON THE DECK
5. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.1 Building Location: Offsets. No structure shall be erected,
structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a
1.5 foot variance to place an attached deck 3.5 feet from the west lot line. (zoning requirement is five (5) feet)
Zoned: RS-310LS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Approve item 45 as submitted. The hardship cited was pre-existing location of the residence and the visual
appearance, of keeping the deck par949Lwith the home,,r
Approved
Chairman O'Neil
�koApproved
�� S /--N
Vice Chai eiker
Denied
r Ross
J ss
Approved
Member Schepp
Absent
Member Brandt
Approved
Member Conley (1 st
-/
Approved
Member Le D669'(2nd Alt.)
item #4 as submitted.
of storage.
Approved
Chairman O'Neil
Denied
Vice Chairman chneiker
Denied
Member Ross
Denied
Member Schepp
Absent
Member Brandt
Approved
Member Conley (1st Alt.)
Denied
Member Le Doux (2nd Alt.)
Approve item #3 as submitted. The hardship cited was garage being detached and whether the aesthetics of the lot
would ei%cted.
Approved
Chairman O'Neil
Vice Chairman S,
Denied
Denied
Ross
1
Denied
Member Schepp
Absent
Member Brandt
0000,
Denied
Approved
Member Le Doux (2nd Alt.)
Approve it9m #1 and #2 as submitted,, Tag hardship cited was location of well and the house on the lot..
Approved
Chairman O'Neil
g�.�
Approved
Vice Chairman 5chn icer
Approved
Me
1
Approved
Member Schepp
Absent
Member Brandt
aer,
Denied
Member Conley (1
� ��
Denied
Member Le�D(fux (2nd Alf)
r
e
CITY OF MUSKEGO
MINUTES OF MAY 28,1998
PRESENT: Chairman O'Neil, Vice Chairman Schneiker, Dan Schepp, lames Ross, David Conley, and William
LeDoux.
ABSSENT: Mike Brandt
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: Secretary reported notice was given May 15, 1998, in accordance with
open meeting laws.
MINUTES: Mr. Schneiker made a motion to approve the April 23, 1998, minutes as submitted. Mr. Schepp
seconded, upon voice vote motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS Signing of decision letters for the April 1998 meeting.
Amended Appeal # 02-98,Thomas D. Reck,W180 S6701 Muskego Drive, Tax Key No. 2174.928 REQUESTING:
Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following two (2) variances: 1.
Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected,
structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks an
14 foot variance to place a new accessory structure I feet from the Muskego Drive right-of-way. (zoning
requirement is 25 feet) 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks. No
structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot closer than 20 feet to the base setback line.
Petitioner seeks a 9 foot variance to leave an existing carport l 1 feet from the base setback line.
Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District in a Lake Shore Overlay
Mr. Reck returned to the Board of Appeals with an amended appeal; he is still under oath. Mr. Reck stated three
hardships for allowing a variance. 1.) The terrain causes rain water to flood his garage and basement. 2.) The
inability to access the garage due to entrance being too small and too steep, the carport allows lighted access and
security for his family. 3.) The structure is not closer to the road than four surrounding area garages.
Mr. Reck supplied architectural plans for the construction of the carport along with a letter regarding rainfall and
pictures showing the location of other garages along the Muskego Drive. A letter from Alderman Pionek was also
submitted substantiating the unique character of the lot.
Mr. Trejo stated this is a legal noncomforming property. Ordinance calls for 25 foot setback, with requirements that
no structure be placed within 20 feet from a road right-of-way. This appeal has been amended removing the request
for the two side decks and increasing the amount of the set back variance request from right-of-way. The house is
setback within the required 25 feet, and there is a steep slope from the Muskego Drive, down into the existing
driveway.
NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #04-98, David Love, W198 S11091 Racine Avenue, Tax Key No. 2287.998.005
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance:
Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.1 Building Location: Offsets. No structure shall be erected,
structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a
five (5) foot variance to place a new accessory five (5) feet from the south property line. (zoning requirement is 10
feet)Zoned: RS-2/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay
Henry Schneiker administered an oath to David Love, homeowner, and Fred Arbenalla, contractor and neighbor.
Mr. Love provided three hardships for allowing a variance: 1) Driveway is concrete and located in the center of a
narrow lake lot, access to the garage would be on the side and turning around into the garage would be difficult. 2)
Building and overhang being so close to driveway could hinder winter snowplowing, maintenance and delivery
trucks. 3) Concerns over the safety of children and pets playing in the area if the garage is placed close to the
BOA 05/28/98
Page 2
existing drive could hinder exiting in and out. Adjoining neighbors have no problem with proposed location of the
structure as it would be abutting a natural buffer of trees.
Mr. Arbenella stated if a variance is not granted, Mr. Love would be required to cut down trees to acconunodate this
structure.
Mr. Trejo stated that the property and structures on the parcel grounds area all conforming with the designated
zoning district. The may hinder to this request is the location of t he driveway, and a driveway location does not
substantiate a hardship. The lot has no unique characteristics that would hinder the relocation of the driveway. To
may alternatives still exist, that the appellant has not utilized, including switching the garage doors to the street side,
increase the width of the driveway along the turn around area or placing fencing or buffering to avoid children
playing in the turn around area.
Appeal #05-98 Timothy and Julie Dunn, S67 W 18775 Pearl Drive, Tax Key No. 2174.020REQUESTING: Under
the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following two (2) variances: Chapter 17--
Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered
or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 16 foot variance to
place an enclosed spa 24 feet from the Gold Drive right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 40 feet) Chapter 17--Zoning
Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or
relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a four (4) foot variance to
place a new accessory structure 36 feet from the Pearl Drive right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 40 feet) Zoned:
RS-2/OED, Suburban Residence District with an Existing Development Overlay
Mr. Schneiker administered an oath to Tim and Julie Dunn.
Mr. Dunn stated they are requesting to install an enclosed spa next to an existing deck that was there when they
purchased this property and replace and increase the size of the existing covered patio on the north side. Their
property is triangularly shaped and enclose by three right-of-ways. The house, taking up a majoring of the buildable
area, has no space for expansion due to being surrounded by all the right-of-ways. The location of the spa blocked
from view on all sides, the street grade is higher than the side yard areas. Mr. Dunn feels this is a severe hardship in
preserving his property rights and the request would not infringe on adjacent properties. Also, the spa is not a
permanent structure, with no long term repercussions.
Mr. Trejo stated the house is a conforming structure. There is a detached garage located on the property that is
closer to Gold Drive than is ordinarily permitted. The existing deck is nonconforming, located to close to Gold
Drive. The spa would be located behind the existing deck, no closer to the road. This is a unique lot with three
right-of-ways, however, that was taken into consideration when the house was built and a spa is not necessarily
considered a permitted use by right.
Mr. Dunn stated there are no home in the subdivision across the street and the tree line serves as a natural fence in
back. The porch would be enclosed for safety reasons. The spa would enhance the landscaping.
Appeal # 06-98 Debra Berens, Tax Key No. 2195.031.002 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following five (5) variances: ON THE ACCESSORY BUILDING Chapter
17--Zoninp Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) BuiIding Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally
altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 14 foot
variance to place a new accessory structure 11 feet from the Kingston Drive right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 25
feet) Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected,
structurally altered or relocated on a lot closer than 20 feet to the base setback line. Petitioner seeks a 9 foot
variance to place a new accessory structure 11 feet from the base setback line. Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance:
Section 5.02 (3) A.1 Building Location: Offsets. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a
lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a one (1) foot variance to place a new
accessory structure four (4) feet from the west lot line. (zoning requirement is five (5) feet) Chapter 17--Zoning
Ordinance: Section 4.05 (2) CA, Accessory Uses and Structures, Permanent Structures. Said regulation states no
detached private garage shall have a floor area greater than 60% of the floor area of the principal building on the lot.
BOA 05/28/98
Page 3
Petitioner seeks a 134 square foot variance to construct a 768 square foot accessory building. (zoning requirement is
634 s.f.) ON THE DECK Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.I Building Location: Offsets. No
structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is
located. Petitioner seeks a 1.5 foot variance to place an attached deck 3.5 feet from the west lot line. (zoning
requirement is five (5) feet) Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay.
Mr. Schneiker administered an oath to Debra Berens, David Woida, Don Connor, Joe Fischer, Howard Gygax, Dave
Taube and Mark Schmalz.
Mr. Woida stated they reconsidered the excessiveness of their previous variance request and are now proposing to
erect a garage 12 feet from the house, maintain an offset from the west lot line that would be equal with the house,
and reduced the size of the proposed structure. The hardships stated were: 1) Property is bound on one side by
water and the pre-existing location of house. 2) Safety, the ingress and egress from the existing residence and the
Iocation of the proposed structure. 3) Lack of storage. 4) Keep sideyards consistent. 4) Keep neighborhood
beautiful.. The petitioners feel attaching the garage to the existing house would cause considerable hardship as the
floor plan of the house does not make this addition feasible and the well would have to be relocated or placed within
the structure.
Mr. Trejo stated the existing structure is too close to the western lotline and adding a deck and a garage would only
make this property more nonconforming. The alternatives are: 1) Attach garage to the house. 2) Construct a
smaller garage. 3) Move the proposed location of the garage closer to the house with a firewall.
Mr. Trejo also expressed that staff still considers this as a self imposed hardship. The owner sold off the neighboring
lot, Iot 39, and now has no adequate area for a structure of this size. Chairman O'Neil stated the lot was sold in 1996
and not relevant to the issue before the Board.
Don Connor stateed he recently purchased a residence on Muskego Drive without a garage and would like to see this
variance granted, since a home and vehicles are the largest purchases a person makes in their lifetime and they
should be enclosed and safer. He too, plans to build a garage on his Iot and would be requesting the same
considerations.
Howard Gygax, neighbor on the west, did not have a concern with the proposed deck. And if the proposed garage
will keep storage inside, he has no problem with the size, as long as it is properly sided.
Mark Schmalz spoke in protest of proposed garage structure, stating it would reduce property taxes and crowd an
area even more. Mr. Schmalz feels that a request for five variances is excessive for any property.
Dave Taube questioned which members viewed the site. Mr. Taube feels there is contradicting testimony regarding
legal lot status, stating he was on the City Council when these lots were split. The garage should be attached to the
house and even if the well is located inside the garage.
Ms. Berens stated that property is unique in shape and can not be compared to new construction since the house was
built in the 1940's. The interior layout of the home would not be accommodating to an attached garage, the well
location hinders placement further away from the street.
Mr. Schepp made a motion for a 10 minute recess. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Motion tamed.
DELIBERATION
APPEAL #2-98 Mr. Ross made a motion to approve the variance as submitted. Mr. Schneiker seconded.
Discussion ensued over the topography of the site, location of existing house and the uniqueness of the lot. Upon
roll call vote, motion carried, 5-1, Mr. Schepp voting nay.
APPEAL #4-98 Mr. Conley made a motion to approve as submitted. Mr. Schepp seconded. Discussion ensued
regarding the placement of the garage, the possible relocation of the driveway and accessing the driveway from the
BOA 05/28/98
Page 4
street side. Upon roll call vote, the motion was denied due to lack of a hardship.
APPEAL #5-98 Mr. Schneiker made a motion to approve Item #1 as submitted. Mr. Ross seconded. Discussion
ensued over the unique shape of the lot, the existing location of the residence and the topology of the site off of
Muskego Drive. Upon roll call vote, motion carried 6-0.
Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve Item #2 as submitted. Mr. Ross seconded. Discussion ensued over the
unique shape of the lot, the existing location of the residence and the topology of the site off of Muskego Drive.
Upon roll call vote, motion carried 5-1, Mr. Schepp voting nay.
APPEAL #5-98 Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve Item #5, as submitted . Mr. Conley seconded. Discussion
ensued over the pre-existing location of the residence and the visual appearance of keeping the deck parallel with the
home. Upon roll call vote, motion carried 5-1, Mr. Ross voting nay.
Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve Item #4 as submitted. Mr. Ross seconded. Discussion ensued whether lack
of storage substantiated a hardship and the City attorney's presentation over substantiating a hardship. Upon roll call
vote, motion was denied 4-2, Chairman O'Neil and Mr. Conley voting yes
Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve Item #3 as submitted. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Discussion ensued over the
garage being detached and whether the aesthetics of the lot would be effected. Upon roll call vote, motion denied 4-
2, Chairman O'Neil and Mr. Le Doux voting yes.
Mr. Ross made a motion to approve Item #1 and #2 as submitted. Mr. Schepp seconded. Discussion ensued over
the location of the well and house on lot. Upon roll call vote, motion carried. 4-2, Mr. Conley and Mr. Le Doux
voting nay.
ADJOURN
With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Schepp made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ross seconded.
Upon voice vote, motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Schroeder