Zoning Board of Appeals- - Minutes 12/07/2006ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FINDINGS OF FACTS
A dimensional variance is hereby granted to Don Domurat Builders Inc. on behalf of
Tony and Tricia La Licata, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego in
Appeal #09-2006 to permit the construction of a Mother -in -Law unit up to 1,500 square
feet in area, allowing a 700 square foot variance on a vacant parcel on Muskego Dam
Road 1 Tax Key No. 2288.991, based upon the applicant having met the specifics of the
City Ordinance with respect to granting variances.
It was found that the variance preserves the intent of the Municipal Code because there
were exceptional conditions applying that do not generally apply to other properties.
The granting of the variance will allow the property owners to build a 1,500 square foot
Mother -in -Law unit attached to the proposed new home. The unique circumstance of
this property is being a large yet narrow lake lot. To build two separate houses would
be less appealing than one and it would be unnecessarily burdensome to take care of
their aging mother in a separate building. The property rights of other property owners
are preserved, and no detriment is caused to adjacent properties.
Dated this 18th day of December 2006.
Signed
Dr. Barb Blumenfieid
Zoning Board of Appeals
Signed
aa-
Kellie Renk
Recording Secretary
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGO
December 7, 2006
Meeting was called to order at 7:06 P.M
Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENT: Dr. Barb Blumenfieid (7:15), Mr. Horst Schmidt, Dr. Russ Kashian, Mr. William Le Doux, Mr.
Richard Ristow and Associate Planner Adam Trzebiatowski.
ABSENT: Chairman Dan Schepp and Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed on November 28,
2006 in accordance with open meeting laws.
NEW BUSINESS:
APPEAL #09-2006—Petitioner: Don Domuarat of Domurat Builders Inc. on behalf of Tony and Tricia La
Licata, Muskego Dam Road (vacant)[Tax Key 2288,991. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter
17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance:
Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 8.01(B) Permitted Accessory Uses.
12. Mother-in-Law/Family Units: Any portion of a single family residence, intended to be
occupied by a resident(s) related through blood, marriage or adoption to a host residence
occupant, being no greater than 800 square feet in size, that has an independent wing or
area that is self-supporting in terms of livable needs (i.e. unit includes a kitchen, bath, den
and bedroom), but is dependent on utility infrastructure of the primary residence. Access to
this wing or area may be obtained via one door to the outside and a second non -lockable
door or passageway to the main portion of the host residence. Access is permitted to a
garage area having no service door.
All such requests are subject to building, site and operational plan approval of the Plan
Commission following written notice being distributed by the Plan Commission to neighboring
property owners within 100 feet of the subject property. (Ord.#947-10-02-97)
An 800 square foot size limit is placed upon Mother-in-Law/Family Units. The petitioner seeks a Mother-
in-Law/Family Unit up to 1,500 square feet in area within their proposed new home, and is therefore
requesting a 700 square foot variance to allow for a larger Mother-in-Law/Family Unit.
Dr. Kashian swore in Don Domurat, Tony and Tricia La Licata and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. La Licata
explained he is proposing to build a 1500 square foot mother-in-law suite. Mr, La Licata stated the
hardship is having a narrow property on the lake. Placing two homes on the property wouid lose the view
of the fake for one of the homes. The proposed house does not resemble a duplex. The design of the
home is a quality design. Mr. La Licata stated his mom has back problems and has to walk with a walker.
Mr. La Licata's mother has been under the care of a doctor and has been receiving Cortisone shots. Mrs.
La Licata would be the primary care giver. They have four children that she would have to take with her
to assist her mother in law. It would be easier to care for her if she lived in the same house.
Mr. La Licata stated both neighbors approve of the proposed mother in law unit. Mr Domurat stated the
City does not like to approve flag lots. If they put a separate guesthouse on the property it would give the
appearance of a flag lot.
Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City's opinion based on the Zoning Code. The petitioner is proposing to
construct a 1500 sq foot mother in law unit attached to their proposed new home. The Code allows
mother-in-law units up to 800 square feet with Plan Commission approval. The petitioner is asking for a
700 square foot variance. In the event something were to happen to his mother, the home would solely
be used for the La Licata family.
Mr. Trzebiatowski added the City must base their recommendation upon a valid hardship as defined by
Sate Law and Zoning Case Law. Based upon the submitted information Staff has not been able to find a
valid hardship. There are two options for this property that do not require a variance.
ZBA Minutes
12/7/2006
Page 2
1 . The mother-in-law unit can be reduced in size to 800 square feet.
2. A guesthouse could be built on the property. A guesthouse is allowed on a residential property
with a conditional use grant and Planning Commission approval. A guesthouse must be at least
1200 square feet in size and has no specific size limit.
It was the consensus of the Plan Commission not to change the Zoning Code and to allow the Zoning
Board of Appeals to determine if there is a hardship present to warrant the increased size limit.
Staff is respectfully requesting denial of appeal 09-2006, allowing a mother-in-law unit up to 1500 square
feet in size, a 700 square foot variance; 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. The Case Law explanation of a hardship does not appear to be met. There is the ability to
construct an 800 square foot mother-in-law unit attached to the proposed house, as well as the option to
construct a separate guesthouse on the property.
Mr. Le Doux questioned what the minimum square footage would be for the second house on the
property. Mr. Trzebiatowski stated the minimum square footage would be 1200 square feet.
Mr. Schmidt questioned the petitioner if they would consider redesigning the house to meet the
requirements. Mr. Domurat stated the design they are coming forth with is what they want to do.
Dr. Blumenfield questioned what is the main issue with a mother-in-law unit. Mr. Trzebiatowski stated
maybe not in this situation, but there is the potential for the mother-in-law unit to become a rental.
Mr. Schmidt questioned if the mother-in-law unit were split off from the main house could it be connected
by a breezeway. Mr. Trzebiatowski stated that would then be considered one house.
Ald. Buckmaster was present as a representative of the Plan Commission. Ald. Buckmaster stated while
there was a positive recommendation from the Plan Commission on this issue it is not within the
boundaries of the Plan Commission to waive. Afd. Buckmaster further stated to try and write in every
situation or circumstance into Ordinance form would be impossible. The Board of Appeals does an
excel#ent job addressing these types of unique issues.
Dr. Kashian suggested a policy to allow the mother-in-law unit's square footage to be increased per acre,
because it fits into the land.
APPEAL #10-2006--Petitioner: Don Connor, W 179 S6887 Muskego Drive/Tax Key 2174.908.
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions,
Petitioner seeks the following variance:
Three variances are being requested within this appeal.
A. 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 25-feet is required from any right-of-way line on the above mentioned lake lot. The petitioner
seeks a setback of 11.03-feet from the front right-of-waylproperty line to permit the construction of an
attached garage, and is therefore requesting a 13.97-foot variance from the front rig ht-of-waylproperty
line.
B. Chapterl7-Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.07- Open Space. (1) Minimum Required: No building shall be
erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot so as to reduce the usable open area of such lot to less
than that hereinafter specified by the regulations for that district.
The minimum open space required for the property is 6,055 square feet (75% of 8,073 square foot lot) per
the RS-310LS requirements. The current open space amount is 6657 square feet, which is 602 square
feet more than required, resulting in 82-percent of the lot area being preserved as open space. The
ZBA Minutes
12/7/2006
Page 3
petitioner is proposing to construct a 528 SF attached garage and to pave a 342 SF driveway (totaling
870 additional square feet), resulting in 72-percent (5787 square feet) of the lot area being preserved as
open space, and is therefore requesting a 3-percent (268 square foot) variance to the Code requirement.
C. 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.
In the case of the petitioned lot, an offset of 4.6-feet is required from the side (northern) lot line. The
petitioner seeks an offset of 4.37-feet from the side (northern) lot fine to permit the construction of an
attached garage, and is therefore requesting a 0.23-foot (2.76 inches) variance from the side (northern)
lot line.
Dr. Blumenfield swore in Don Conner and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. Conner explained he purchased the
house 10 years ago, prior to having children. The house is on the lake on a narrow lot. There is an
attached garage on the property. The previous owners remodeled the living room and pushed it out into
the garage. The garage cannot be used as a garage, but a shed for storing the snow blower and etc. Mr
Conner also noted the house does not have a basement. Mr. Conner stated he would like a garage for
the cars. Two snowmobiles and a trailer were stolen from the property so there are safety concerns. The
two -car garage is proposed to be placed on the north side of the house. It would be further away from the
road than if it were on the south side. Mr. Conner stated because of the open space requirements he is
only proposing to pave the apron to the garage. He does not want to bring gravel into the garage when
he drives in and out, and the paved driveway will also help with snow removal.
Dr. Blumenfield questioned if Mr. Conner considered moving the living room wall back. Mr. Conner stated
he had not thought of that, but the size of the garage would not be big enough for his vehicles.
Dr. Blumenfield questioned who owns the lot next door. Mr. Conner stated the lot is a lake lot deeded to
100 people. Dr, Blumenfield asked if Mr. Conner considered purchasing a portion of the neighboring lot.
Mr. Conner said he checked into it and he would need 100 people to sign off.
Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City's opinion based on the Zoning Code. The petitioner is requesting to
construct a new attached 22' x 24' garage. They currently have a small attached garage that cannot have
a car parked within it because of a fiving room addition that a previous owner built into the garage area.
There is also a 100 square foot shed present on site. The parcel is zoned RS-3/OLS which is the typical
zoning for a property on Little Muskego Lake. The petitioner is requesting the following three variances:
setback of 11.03 feet from the front right of way, a 0.23-foot variance from the side (northern) lot line and
a 3-percent variance to the open space requirement.
The City must base their recommendation upon a valid hardship as defined by State Law and Zoning
Case Law. Based upon the submitted information staff has not been able to find a valid hardship. The
Zoning Code does not state that garages are required for a property. If there is a need for storage on the
property, a new accessory structure could possibly be built and/or an addition to the house for storage
could be build in a conforming location. There is the option to modify the living room area to reclaim the
lost garage space.
The biggest concern on this property is the proposed location of the garage in relation to the roadway.
The garage is being proposed to be located only 11.03 feet away from the front property line at the
closest point, which is only about 18.5 feet away from the edge of the actual road. At the furthest corner
the garage will only be about 20 feet away from the edge of the actual road. The visual impact of the
garage appears to be a safety concern. Also, if vehicles will be parked in front of the garage this will
make the visibility even more hazardous.
Staff is respectfully requesting denial of appeal 10-2006, allowing an 11.03-foot setback from the
Muskego Drive lot line and a 4.37-foot offset from the northern lot line for the construction of an attached
garage, requiring a 13.97-foot variance from Muskego Drive and a 0.23-foot variance from the northern
lot line and an open space variance of 268 square feet, 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
ZBA Minutes
12/7/2006
Page a
not apply to other properties. There are safety concerns if the garage were to be place in the proposed
location due to the close proximity to the roadway.
Dr. Blumenfield questioned where the cars are currently being parked. Mr. Conner stated the cars are
being parked in front of the house on the gravel.
Mr. Conner added he will be using space saver trusses for storage.
Mr. Schmidt questioned if the houses in the area were built about the same time. Mr. Conner stated there
were.
Mr. Le Doux explained the direction of the bend in the road opens the road up to see onto East Drive. Mr.
Conner stated he does not plan on parking the cars in front of the garage, only in the garage or next to
the garage.
DELIBERATIONS
APPEAL 09-2006— Mr. Le Doux moved to approve as submitted. Seconded by Dr. Kashian. Mr.
Le Doux stated the City does not like flag lots and one house would look more appealing than two. The
hardship is having to follow the code while having a narrow lot is unnecessarily burdensome.
Dr. Kashian feels the hardship is a medical condition. It would be unwarranted to make the owners go
from house to house to take care of their family members. Dr. Kashian added he would be concerned
with someone trying to split the second house off.
Dr. Blumenfield noted the size of the lot is not the issue and one house in front of the other would be
unequal and inequitable. The City wants quality construction not piece mail. Upon a roll call vote
Appeal 09-2006 is approved 5-0.
APPEAL 10-2006— Mr. Le Doux moved to approve as submitted with the understanding that cars
will not be parking in front of the garage to further reduce the visibility on Muskego Drive.
Seconded by Dr. Kashian. Dr. Blumenfield stated she drove out to the property and looked at other
properties in the area. Dr. Biumenfieid does not see a visual problem where the garage would be
located. Dr. Blumenfield stated no one would want to be without a garage. There is a unique situation
with the older homes who do not have a garage or basement for storage. The City encourages a
property owner to maintain their property and a garage would be beneficial to the property. There is a
hardship to the property owner if he were to have to contact 100 property owners to purchase a piece of
the lot next door.
Dr. Kashian stated he agrees there should be a garage, but it should be moved back because this could
be a potential site problem. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 10-2006 is approved 4-1, with Dr. Kashian
voting no.
OLD BUSINESS: none.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the minutes of August 24, 2006.
Seconded by Dr. Kashian. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS:
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Dr. Blumenfield moved to
adjourn. Mr. Schmidt seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:27 P.M.
R sp ctfuliy S muted,
Kelli enk
Recording Secretary
CITY OF MUSKEGO
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA
December 7, 2006 7:00 PM
Muskego City Hall, Muskego Room, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue
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 appeals
described below. The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
1. APPEAL #09-2006
Petitioner: Don Domurat of Dornurat Builders Inc. on behalf of Tony & Tricia La Licata
Property: Muskego Dam Road (Vacant) / Tax Key No. 2288.991
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions,
Petitioner seeks the following variance:
Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 8.01(B) Permitted Accessory Uses
12. Mother-in-Law/Family Units: Any portion of a single family residence, intended to be
occupied by a resident(s) related through blood, marriage or adoption to a host residence
occupant, being no greater than 800 square feet in size, that has an independent wing or
area that is self-supporting in terms of livable needs (i.e. unit includes a kitchen, bath, den
and bedroom), but is dependent on utility infrastructure of the primary residence. Access to
this wing or area may be obtained via one door to the outside and a second non -lockable
door or passage way to the main portion of the host residence. Access is permitted to a
garage area having no service door. (Ord. #947 - 10-02-97)
All such requests are subject to building, site, and operational plan approval of the Plan
Commission following written notice being distributed by the Plan Commission to
neighboring property owners within 100 feet of the subject property. (Ord. #947 - 10-02-97)
An 800 square foot size limit is placed upon Mother-in-Law/Family Units. The petitioner seeks a Mother-in-
Law/Family Unit up to 1,500 square feet in area within their proposed new home, and is therefore requesting a
700 square foot variance to allow for a larger Mother-in-Law/Family Unit.
2. APPEAL #10-2006
Petitioner: Don Conner
Property: W 179 S6887 Muskego Drive 1 Tax Key No. 2174.908
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions,
Petitioner seeks the following variances:
ZBA 12/07/2006
Page 2
NOTE: There are three variances being requested within this appeal.
A. 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 25-feet is required from any right-of-way line on the above mentioned lake lot. The petitioner
seeks a setback of 11.03-feet from the front rig ht-of-waylproperty line to permit the construction of an attached
garage, and is therefore requesting a 13.97-foot variance from the front right-of-waylproperty line.
B. Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.07 - Open Space
(1) Minimum Required: No building shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot
so as to reduce the usable open area of such lot to less than that hereinafter specified by
the regulations for that district.
The minimum open space required for the property is 6,055 square feet (75% of 8,073 square foot lot) per the
RS-310LS requirements. The current open space amount is 6,657 square feet, which is 602 square feet more
than required, resulting in 82-percent of the lot area being preserved as open space. The petitioner is
proposing to construct a 528 SF attached garage and to pave a 342 SF driveway (totaling 870 additional
square feet), resulting in 72-percent (5,787 square feet) of the lot area being preserved as open space, and is
therefore requesting a 3-percent (268 square foot) variance to the Code requirement.
C. 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.
In the case of the petitioned lot, an offset of 4.6-feet is required from the side (northern) lot line. The petitioner
seeks an offset of 4.37-feet from the side (northern) lot line to permit the construction of an attached garage,
and is therefore requesting a 0.23-foot (2.76 inches) variance from the side (northern) lot line.
CLOSED SESSION
OPEN SESSION
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 24, 2006 MEETING.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
None.
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 Janice Moyer, City
Clerk/Treasurer at Muskego City Hall, (262) 679-5625.
City of Muskego
Staff Representative Brief
Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 09-2006
For the meeting of. December 7, 2006
REQUESTING:
Under the direction of Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 8.01 (B) Permitted Accessory Uses
12. Mother-in-Law/Family Units: Any portion of a single family residence, intended to be
occupied by a resident(s) related through blood, marriage or adoption to a host
residence occupant, being no greater than 800 square feet in size, that has an
independent wing or area that is self-supporting in terms of livable needs (i.e. unit
includes a kitchen, bath, den and bedroom), but is dependent on utility infrastructure
of the primary residence. Access to this wing or area may be obtained via one door
to the outside and a second non -lockable door or passage way to the main portion of
the host residence. Access is permitted to a garage area having no service door.
(Ord. #947 - 10-02-97)
APPELLANT: Don Domurat of Domurat Builders Inc. on behalf of Tony & Tricia La Licata
LOCATION: Muskego Dam Road (Vacant) 1 Tax Key No. 2288.991
CITY'S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski, City Staff Representative
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is seeking approvals to construct up to a 1,500 square foot Mother-ln-Law Unit within their
new home they are planning to build on the above mentioned property. The parcel is zoned RS-2,
Suburban Residence District. This property is located on Muskego Dam Road along the southern border
of the City. The petitioner is seeking the following variance:
An exception to the 800 square foot limitation for Mother-in-Law/Family units.
The Zoning Code states that Mother -in -Law Units are allowed with Pian Commission approval up to 800
square feet in size. The petitioner has already received Plan Commission approval for the Mother-in-
Law/Family Unit but they are seeking a variance because they want their unit to be over 800 square feet.
They are requesting up to a 1,500 square foot unit, which requires a 700 square foot variance.
DISCUSSION
This Mother -in -Law Unit is proposed to be attached to a newly proposed house. As stated above, the
Zoning Code allows Mother -in -Law Units up to 800 square feet in size with Plan Commission approval.
The petitioner has stated a need to allow for an increased size (up to 1,500 square feet).
The information submitted by the petitioner states that Mr. La Licata's mother is widowed and currently
lives in a 3,000 square foot ranch home in Greenfield. The petitioner stated that the reason they are
asking for the larger Mother -in -Law Unit is because of his mother's age and her need to be close to her
family for safety, security, and support. The petitioner has also stated that due to the size of home that his
mother is used to living in, an 800 square foot unit would leave her feeling closed in and Closter phobic.
The petitioner has stated that the home will not resemble a duplex or multi -family structure and the
structure will never be used as a rental property. If in the event that something were to happen to his
Appeal # 09-2006
ZBA 12-07-2006
Page 1 of 2
mother, the home would solely be used for the La Licata family (two parents and four children). The lot
that the house and mother-in-law unit are being proposed upon is about 4.5 acres in size.
The submittal included a letter from the two adjoining property owners stating that they are aware of the
proposal and they have no problems with it.
Based upon the submitted information staff has not been abie to find a valid hardship. The City must base
their recommendation upon a valid hardship as defined by State Law and Zoning Case Law. Zoning Case
Law states that a hardship must be unique to the property, it cannot be self-created, and must be based
upon conditions unique to the property rather than conditions personal to the property owners(s). Case
Law also states that a hardship should be something that would unreasonably prevent the owner from
using their property for the permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions
unnecessarily burdensome.
There are two options that can be pursued on this property that do not require a variance and they are as
follows:
1. The Mother -in -Law Unit can be reducedllimited in size to 800 square feet.
2. A Guest House could be built on the property. A Guest House is allowed on a residential property
with a Conditional Use Grant and Planning Commission approval. A Guest House must be at
least 1,200 square feet in size and has no specific size limit.
At the Planning Commission meeting regarding this request staff asked the Plan Commission if they were
in favor of changing the Zoning Code to allow the Planning Commission to be able to approve larger
Mother -in -Law Units. The consensus of the Commission was to not change to code and to allow the
Zoning Board of Appeals to determine if there is a hardship present to warrant the increased size limit.
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY STAFF REPRESENITIVE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS:
Denial of Appeal 09-2006, allowing a Mother -in -Law Unit up to 1,500 square feet in size, a 700
square foot variance; 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. The Case Law explanations of a hardship (as listed above) do not appear to be met.
There is the ability to construct an 800 square foot Mother -in -Law Unit attached to the proposed
house, as well as the option to construct a separate Guest House on the property.
Appeal # 09-2006
ZBA 12-07-2006
Page 2 of 2
Appeal #09-2006
Supplemental Map
Print Application
CITY of DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE APPLICATION PACKET
USKEGQ PLANNING DEPARTMENT
o --
Applicant (Please Print or Type) Date
Name: %� p 0 ,�4,,n v ro T
Business Name: U•�DM u 7L- /;;'C—
Address:
City: Al t/5�-e State: Fcol Zip Code:
Phone Number: ram//y �raa_y�a Fax Number: F
Mobile Number: I /y- 6�'-'� ;�33� E-mail Address: I A404 Q �� ,yv4,317-oe'aJ
Property Owner (Please Print or Type) This section can be left blank if the same as above.
Name: 170,iY -/- ;;-rA' Xa Ll e,; 4e�
Business Name:
Address: I a e,/'7( 73 91T-,7r7-? v7 D�
City: State: I wI Zip Code: ,tom 3rsZ�
Phone Number: ^ 679- ya 3oo Fax Number:
Mobile Number: t�//W—�3p ay �o, E-mail Address:
Please fill out the information below regarding the proposed dimensional variance.
Location/Address:
Tax Key Number(s): j as ^gy. 9q%
To allow: Tflld,N� W'� 0.�Qjlzlfr�ri��
A Hteral enforcement of the terms of t r �,�„ f� (yt 0,,W-e cm 4k y 3/Y R[ r,e Lo tti. I j
the above -referenced section would e 4- !!
result in practical difficulty and �""'"'f''%�/�
unnecessary hardship because: �`�` �ar�2 j , j j )Ole- g�,,'�cfvi
��
�`" •-'�- w e...a �.r3 � Cn-�2 gi o-crs�2
Page 1 of 4
The variance, if granted, will not be
contrary to the public interest and will
be in accord with the spirit of the code
because:
The variance, if granted, will not
adversely affect public safety or
jeopardize public welfare because:
tll/ /I AMy '
(/ v J1
11V-F-4'L�- T/,a al� a a Thy _4_w 1 / k
/-;(P- a..- e-p� .
�¢ 7/1
If this form has been filled out electronically, please click on the "Print Application" button on
the top of page 1 or to the right of this text. I Print Application
Once the application is printed/filled out it can be submitted to the Planning Department
along with any applicable information required for your submittal. Please see the attached
sheet to ensure that the proper supporting documents are submitted along with this
completed form.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE
PROCEDURE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS WILL RESULT IN THIS
APPLICATION BEING WITHHELD FROM CONSIDERATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
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 / APPLICANT
OWNER I DEVELOPER FOR 100% RECOVERY. (Ch. 3.085/Ord. #909)
Signat re of the Property Owner: Signature of the Applicant (workin as "Agent" for the owner):
int Na print Na .
4k\�,�.� too,-7o lc/ J Ocr w u"
Date: Date:
ro 3r—c-10
W. For Planning Department Use Only
Submittal Date: Staff Signature:
Fees Paid: r Yes i No Public Hearing/Meeting Date:
Page 2 of 4
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the future neighbors of Tony and Tricia La Licata. They have stopped by our
home explaining their situation of requesting to build larger than (800 square feet of in-
law quarters.) in order for their mother/mother-in-law to feel more comfortable.
We are aware that in no way will they build their home to resemble that of a duplex.
Their home will be roughly around 5000 sq. feet with a brick front and possibly some
stone on it.
We all own roughly around five or more acres of land which is more than ample room
for a home of this size and our homes will not be on top of each other.
They have made us aware that in the event that something were to happen to their
mother/mother-in-law they will use their home solely for their own large family.
Neighbor
Out Lot #1
(To West of property)
Neighbor J '
Parcel # 1 �J �, Y date:
(To East of property)
*Tony and Tricia La Licata's lot is Parcel #2 which is located in the middle of both of our
homes.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am aware that I need to present to you the reasons behind my mother needing in-law
quarters larger than the allotted 800 sq. feet.
Let me start by telling you that my mother is a young sixty three year old lady who
was unfortunately left a widow all too soon. She now resides in Greenfield, WI. and has
for the past seventeen years in a 3,000 sq. foot ranch home. She and my father lived there
for the last twelve years alone after their children left home.
Several years ago my wife and I purchased our lot on Muskego Dam Rd. This past
summer my father and mother decided to purchase a lot a few lots down from ours where
they were planning on building a 2,800 sq. foot ranch. My father always wanted to be
close to us in the event anything were ever to happen to them that they became too sickly
to care for themselves that we would take care of them . My father never wanted them to
be placed in a nursing home. With this being said my wife and I always planned on them
either moving in with us or living close by for us to care for them. We wanted to respect
his wishes.
My father's untimely death has left my mother to be alone and, too far away from us.
She is scared to live alone yet does not want to feel a burden to her children. We offered
for her to move in with us and said we would be happy to build in-law quarters for her.
However, only building 800sq. feet for her would leave her feeling closed in and Closter
phobic. We do not want her to feel she is going from a home of a very large size to an
apartment size home.
I also have two sisters one who lives in Muskego and another who lives in Miami. She
travels to Florida to be with her daughter several weeks throughout the year which leaves
us to care for two households, a business and our four children.
My father was a well known person in the community. With that being said we fear
for her safety and feel she is a target because of so many people knowing that she resides
there alone.
My sister who lives in Muskego spends several nights a week away from her own
home with her children so that our mother does not need to be alone. My wife and I have
her spend the weekend and Tuesday nights by our home. We can not continue to make
her feel that she is so dependent on us because she does not like that. However, she did
agree that living alone makes her sad and the thought of living next to us gives her space
yet comfort knowing we are right next door if need be.
I made a promise to my father to take care of her but in doing so I know she needs
ample room as she is not accustomed to living in tight quarters (800 sq. feet). We plan on
building a beautiful high quality home that will add to the value of the neighborhood.
We plan on this being our final home and in no way will this take on the appearance
of a duplex. This in no way is or ever will be used as rental property. In the event that
something were to happen to my mother the home will be solely used for my family
which consists of my wife, our four children, and myself.
Our property is a large piece of land just shy of five acres and in no way will it Iook
out of place being that our future neighbor Tom Weber has a home of the same caliber in
which we are purposing to build.
We have been residents of Muskego for the past twelve years and wish to continue to
be a resident of this fine community. We feel it is a safe place to live and to raise our
children in.
We feel confident that after reviewing our plans you will see the thought and quality
being put into this home and that you will take into consideration the value and quality
we have for family.
Thank you, for your time
Sincerely,
Anthony D. La Licap and Tnicia R. La Licata "' '
� C
of�
h �
� � � � war4Axns As nacrNSArcn $_'—',
+� StMRI'ON SaPT. 21, xOOO.
x O UTLOT 2
�: °� N ne•ps�a' 703.$78 S.F.
+5e.1lo 16.159 AC.
(7-0 SHORELINE)
\\ y4 Ja 2- ABOVE ]DO YR
P4AIN LINE fa4FVf78000
�-
11
Y► -1.,
A
WATERS
EDCE
!'OON P!P
� Fgpy 6A K
0WfignISUDDtvro>*K:
HAROLD DEBACK
IIlgo 510967 RAl3Q AVE.
5.S
N p8•a4'17- IV $9l.10
a05.z$
R=ez9.10
d=14,73'01 " o
L=210.55 '*
C6=1V,94 °27'59. W
Ch-204.98
T. IN=N77'1 1'29" R'
T. 0 UT=S88"15 vo-pr
l PA RCE'L I
Y l MEANDER � `ram B_e 195.020 S.F
L1rVE C.
4.477 A
np $ (TO SHORELINE)
sucoFsrav �
x ►lOfINO AX �A N Op•p�•r7^ r at7�AO
yl PA RCE'L 2
` 19,5 o33 S. F.
1 "srtAN�y : aPrLlr �zoaa Br 4 496 AC.
sr■xrc 4 tTo sxokrulvp"q-r
I` S/
II u \ 49\"
y-CPO /Rp jVv.WA rSNA
ropo. rsP (f43v. 7'+po) �
OUTLOT 1 BO •
$ ha
258.913 S F.
5.94N
st
4 AC. g
(To SHORELINL�)
I Axe � 50" ROAD —5 1 a
.3S' DRAINAGE �� RE}•aRYArroev e
EASEMENT 313.14
m ca' 3 20 N o f •IO�s r
� IinAn 365.i
"' ro�gvArroN �7: IV O1 °40'26�' w
s „r �sR CORYSR-fS-
P�Pa,`�r� �� UNPLATTED II114SEA32 5-2
. EAU LANDS
gB 7d ~DRfINAC£ p1'Cffa34� 7-." 1"6f"9CO�N�C
MDNMNTo1'i 31�81
.1VicS.Y.
I A KCEL 4 C S M. N0. 7101 a UT
sK r
IRON PIPS ssr PACE 1 OF 5
22' FRou BANK
IX z
L am
alit
UCT 3 1 2`!,r"3
1_
1
a
+ •mot:.. "�� _-- — j--��.J � " �+►� r-'L_ - ..-,s_._� _ 1 t - .; e - _ l-. _. .�_ . � - -- --- --' 1 n nY^ I
OCT
lot
III — �_�..—_._�...-- _ ,.•
( i logo
a q (6 r �. "� 'i I lEht S"_"~ i. I - _ � � .. - - .. _ ••. — — -
Y� /.. - _-.: ? - rya• � R4 I si Sy'.� - i.'i� !• _ _ - - _ _._ _.---- - _. ..____
A I
F✓�f-_
_ _
_
- - �� -'A..•-
3•-�<�(•
.
I``•i `'
---
�
_
ice'
----- - s
_ �
� .-
_ _ - --� -.�. - ,
_ F
3
Ilia. . - .., 'y➢h�`k-rR+-> _ .. ..� � . -.1. �.-.. _. _ �.r
a
-2460 6"AT,
�i" r BATH j.�z' GL75�`f aq
2$ �If
_._
tj
i � A
NA� '
-OWI+ V �Z
-
-
11 or Ts= T,
.. I
— z''7;1„ b
24'bd
EMT
u,u�N+s
WDyG -aft&WT#rbr 4KC46 PA
�i��Flr�l4kE77.Gu'T� � Doi, -
I
MW 4 WP
i
a
?W44- �SrPllJfx
TYvs�-
Rye �Ar"[i'1uhUL. .
POL'G V�CPaR s����
D�PPP—a6'�IiJCa
P=
� � 5 a- I-Ctae-
Po P�?WIX8" e-WL-