Zoning Board of Appeals 12-1999l
CITY OF
MUSKEGO
October 5, 1999
Mr. Marc O'Hair
u k7i"t S6730 Muskego Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
RE: Appeal #12-99
Dear Mr. O'Hair.
The Board of Appeals wishes to advise that your appeal from Chapter 17—
Section 4.05(2)C.6. seeking a 4.17 foot side offset variance, 11.25 foot side
offset is required and a 5 foot variance to construct the detached garage 5'
from the existing attached garage was denied due to lack of hardship.
Should you have any questions, please contact Dustin Wolff at 679-4136.
Sincerely,
i
Susan J. Schroeder
Recording Secretary
C: Mayor DeAngelis
U
BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGO SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
Meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Schepp, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Michael Brandt, Chris Wiken,
David Conley and Terry O'Neil.
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: Secretary reported notice was give on September 23, 1999,
in accordance with the Open Meeting Laws.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1999 MEETING. Mike Brandt made a
motion to approve the minutes as presented. Terry O'Neil seconded. Upon voice vote, motion
carried. (6-0)
OLD BUSINESS: Signing of decision letters for the August 26, 1999 meeting.
NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #11-99 Petitioner: Robert Zielinski, Residence: W 194 S9689 Racine
Avenue Tax Key No. 2273.997.002 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoe
Ordinance: Section 17:3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Chapter
17---Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06(2)A.1.Nonconforming Structure: No structure shall be
expanded or enlarged except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located.
Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 8.02(3) Building Location: Minimum Setback (in feet) 50.
Petitioner requires a 7.85 foot front setback variance to permit construction a second -story addition on
an existing legal non -conforming residence located 42.15 feet from the right -of --way line. The
Ordinance requires a 50 foot front setback. Zoned: R-1, Country Home District.
Henry Schneiker administered an oath to William Cesar, son-in-law to Robert Zielinski, also a
resident of this house. Mr. Cesar stated this is a 830 square foot home that they wish to add a second
story. When originally built in 1950's they had an 80-100 foot setback. Since Waukesha County has
widen the road, they have become legal non -conforming.
Mr. Wolff agreed with the petitioner. When additional right -of --way was taken by County for Racine
Avenue, the property in question became legal non -conforming. Mr. Wolff stated that there should
have been a variance granted at that time to leave the property "whole", or conforming, in the eyes of
the City. This property will eventually have sewer and will be rezoned at that time. All properties
with sewer have a setback requirement of 40', which this property will conform with. Staff feels they
have met the hardship requirements as a result of the eminent domain.
Appeal #12-99 Petitioner: Marc O'Hair, Residence: W 197 S6730 Muskego Drive,Muskego Tax
Key No. 2174.876 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section
I7:3.0$(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variances: 1. Chapter I7-- Zoning
Ordinance: Section 4.05(2)C.6. No detached private garage shall be erected, structurally altered or
relocated so that any roofed or enclosed portion thereof is closer than 10 feet to the principal building
on the lot. 2. Chapter 17 Zonin& Ordinance: Section 5.02(3)A. No building shall hereafter be
erected, structurally altered, or relocated so that it is closer to any lot line than the offset distance
hereinafter specified by the regulations for the district in which it is located. Petitioner seeks a 4.17
foot side offset variance to construct a detached garage. The Ordinance requires an 11.25 foot side
offset. In addition, petitioner seeks a 5 foot variance to construct the detached garage 5' from the
existing attached garage. Zoned: RS-2/OED, Suburban Residence District as modified by the
Existing Development Overlay.
Henry Schneiker administered an oath to Marc O'Hair. Mr. O'Hair explained he would like to frilly
utilize his land and add a 22' x 28' garage on the north side of property 7' off the north property line.
Mr. O'Hair feels this is not an unusual request and the neighbor's have signed a statement giving
their approval for this request. Mr. O'Hair also feels this new garage would enhance the property and
reduce crime by having items inside a garage.
Mr. Schneiker questioned the size of the existing garage. Mr. O'Hair stated it only affords room for
one vehicle because the fireplace chase sticks out into the garage and the garage only has a 16' door..
Mr. O'Neil questioned why not add on to existing garage. Mr. O'Hair stated that was discussed,
however, it would be an additional $5,000 - $7,000 for an attached addition to that garage and he
does not feel he would be able to ever recover that money.
Mr. Wolff stated that the property is legal conforming in all regards. Economics alone does not merit
hardship, and there is no other hardship affecting the property. The setback requirement is more of an
inconvenience to the petitioner's proposal. Other possible locations exist for a detached garage on the
property without requiring a variance, but aren't popular alternatives as they reduce the amount of
usable yard. Mr. O'Hair could have a 22' x 28' attached garage without the need a variance.
DELIBERATIONS
APPEAL 99-11 Henry Schneiker made a motion to approve the variance as submitted. Hardship
being the County took eminent domain, causing this property to become legal non -conforming.
David Conley seconded. Upon roll call vote, motion carried 6-0.
APPEAL 99-12 Terry O'Neil made a motion to approve the request as submitted. Mike Brandt
seconded. Upon roll call vote, motion was denied 6-0, for lack of hardship, monetary concern is not
considered a hardship.
ADJOURN: With no further business to come before this board, Terry O'Neil made a motion to
adjourn at 8:20 P.M. David Conley seconded.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan I Schroedc
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA
CITY OF MUSKEGO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RESCHEDULED SEPTEMBER 23, 1999, BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 62.23 (7) (e) 6, that a Public Hearing will be
held in the Muskego Room at the Muskego City Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue, at 7:00 P.M., Thursday,
September 30, 1999, to consider the following petitions for appeals to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Muskego:
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 1999 MEETING.
5. OLD BUSINESS
• Signing of decision letters for the August 26, 1999 meeting.
6. NEW BUSINESS
Appeal #11-99
Petitioner: Robert Zielinski
Residence: W 194 S9689 Racine Avenue
Muskego, WI 53150
Location of Appeal: Same
Tax Key No. 2273.997.002
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 17:3.08(l) Appeal
Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variances:
1. Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06(2)A.1.Nonconforming Structure: No structure shall be
expanded or enlarged except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is loc#ted.
2. Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 8.02(3) Building Location: Minimum Setback (in feet) 50.
Petitioner requires a 7.85 foot front setback variance to permit construction a second -story addition on an
existing legal non -conforming residence located 42.15 feet from the right-of-way line. The Ordinance requires
a 50 foot front setback.
Zoned: R-1, Country Home District.
Appeal #12-99
Petitioner: Marc O'Hair
Residence: W197 S6730 Muskego Drive
BOA 913"9
Page 2
Muskego, WI 53150
Location of Appeal: Same Tax Key No. 2174.876
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 17:3.08(1) Appeal
Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variances:
1. Chapter 17—Zonis Ordinance: Section 4,05(2)C.6. No detached private garage shall be erected,
structurally altered or relocated so that any roofed or enclosed portion thereof is closer than 10 feet to the
principal building on the lot.
2. Chapter 17_Zqqipg Ordinance: Section 5.02(3)A. No building shall hereafter be erected, structurally
altered, or relocated so that it is closer to any lot line than the offset distance hereinafter specified by the
regulations for the district in which it is located.
Petitioner seeks a 4.17 foot side offset variance to construct a detached garage. The Ordinance requires an
11.25 foot side offset. In addition, petitioner seeks a 5 foot variance to construct the detached garage 5'
from the existing attached garage.
Zoned: RS-2/OED, Suburban Residence District as modified by the Existing Development Overlay.
7. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS.
None
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.
Board of Appeals
City of Muskego
Dan Schepp, Chairman
Dated this 9" day of September, 1999
NOTICE
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.
NOTICE
"Please note that, upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to acconunodate the needs of disabled individuals through
appropriate aids and services. For additional information or to request this service, contact Jean Marenda at City Hall, W 192
S8200 Racine Avenue 414 679-5625."
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
Application for Variance
Applicant's Name
Subject Property Address
Telephone
Property Zoning: r -a- �� Tax Key # (2 ,
Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable):
owner lessee other
Fee: $197.00
Date inspector denied zoning permit:
Requesting variance to Code Section 4. o! 6z} c..
To allo
A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in practical
difficulty and unnecessary hards�ip because:
The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in accord
with the spirit of the code because -
CA
-L Lo r
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public welfare
because:
�u�hJ
Statement of Variance
1. Preservation of Intent
September 2, 1999
The purpose for constructing this garage is to store an automobile, a boat, and other outdoor
equipment, such as a lawn mower and snow blower. Almost every house in our neighborhood has
a garage of some type, and many also have a detached second garage. Therefore, this proposed
structure would not be unusual in this area. Since the intent of the zoning law is to prevent unsafe,
inappropriate, or detrimental structures from being built, it is the opinion of my neighbors and
myself that a variance would not compromise the intent of the law, the quality of the
neighborhood, or the safety of the public.
2. Exceptional Circumstances
The unusual circumstance which exist in this case, is that the interior of the existing garage is
exceptionally small. Specifically, 16 feet at the narrowest point. This allows for one car and some
other items. So, there will always be a vehicle and some yard equipment stored outside, in view
of the public, and diminishing the appeal of the neighborhood.
3. Preservation of Property Rights
This garage would be constructed to provide a safer, more aesthetically pleasing way of storing
my car and yard equipment. The alternative to building a new garage is to park my car and store
my yard equipment outside, next to my house. Storing these items inside a professionally built
garage is much cleaner and more pleasant alternative. This will also protect my personal property
from damage resulting from the elements. Other houses in the immediate neighborhood also have
detached garages of similar design and construction. Some of these garages are situated such that
they are much closer to their respective property lines than my proposed garage would be. I feel
that it is a legitimate request to enjoy my property in a fashion that is similar to the way my
neighbors enjoy their property.
4. Absence of Detriment
In this situation, a variance would not cause any harm to the neighbors, or to the public. The
attached sheet is signed by the owners of the properties surrounding mine. The neighbors have
indicated that they have no objection to the proposed garage. I have also spoken to my Alderman
(Donald Pionek) about the proposed encroachment, and he has also stated that he does not have
an objection to the proposed structure. Please note that this garage would be located
approximately 91.75 feet away from the road, and 7.08 feet from the north -side property line.
These distances would allow my neighbors, and the public, a safe and unobstructed passage along
our property.
5. Hardship
There are two hardships which applies to this particular situation. The first is caused by the way
the land is zoned. The north -side property line is 34.08 feet from the house. The zoning code
states that the offset is 11.25 feet from the side property line, and that any outbuilding must be
constructed 10 feet or more from the house. This would only allow for a 12.83-foot wide garage
to be built on the property. A garage this small would not be practical to build, given the cost
required for such relatively little storage. The second is due to the size of the existing garage. The
width of the current garage is 16 feet at the narrowest point. If two cars are parked in the existing
garage, there is insufficient room to fully open one of the car doors, and exit the car. Therefore, it
is not practical to park two cars in the existing garage.
i 1��.} It
(Y1 us c. Jr.�
I
i
j
I I
�
t '
_
I
—_—
i
I
I
}
!
I
i
rill
I
--
11
I
1 j
i
I
I
s
AtTtArCHEGA 2�G�
NO ',/^Yz- I � cG C;4eQL'A � ? FD
EX.s ;.yy
Pi5vcF
&-off
00
i
SerT 9,1999
IiiFl�ola
•
A
• I -t
c uL�uce
` C7
2G.2
�y2o' 40
m o
79
S 6 730
.3f�!g8 2 .7
y3
� IvG •74
So co
zI
)VE-DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE ABOVE MAP IS A TRUE REPRESENTATION THEREOF A
HE PROPERTY. ITS EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES. THE LOCATION Awn nrvFucinuc nr. . T . ..,�..
We, the owners and occupants of the properties surrounding West 179 South 6730 Muskego Drive, understand
that Marc and Kim O'Hair, the owners and occupants of West 179 South 6730 Muskego Drive, wish to
construct a detached garage on their property.
We have been informed by Marc O'Hair that the proposed garage would have the dimensions of 22 feet wide by
28 feet long. A structure of this width would not conform to the building code of the City of Muskego.
Specifically, the garage would not meet the onset requirements established by the City of Muskego, and
consequently, would be located too close to the north -side property line. In other words, because this garage
would extend approximately 7 feet from the north -side property line, it would be considered too wide, according
to the city. The building code of the City of Muskego also states that structures such as the proposed garage
cannot be erected closer than 10 feet to any other structure. The proposed location of this structure would be 5
feet from the house, located on the aforementioned property.
We feel it would be appropriate for a Variance to be granted for this structure. We do not have any objections to
the size, construction, location, or appearance of this proposed garage.
Name: kA-) vL� owS
Address
Signed:
Name: Aff w
Address:VJ 1 33 AV3
Signed:
7
Name: Name:
Address ' P/-Address:
i : 4 Si ed:
S gned
Name: k_erltj "AJ Z- Name:
Address: W ' 7 .S�R, Address:
Signed. — Signed:
Nam /7 ��i7 f/'D Name --
Address: k)l ZFS1 ZN3 /% KSX-Errd OA—'' Address:
Signed: Signed:
C7
t
ep
0 x z
M M
> r y-1
ny
c
C
rn
��PoH=m�'—
>>y.N.{{>O
x
>
? x
s Cz
�
��tM>m
om
t�s1 O C,
�70<mOC
r
z
'� 0
0cy
r .
Z
-i-
c
cpvg:>a
)x
M
x > O
< 1 N Z m
C
CC" H
>����
�
Yn
C]
>�OM
m z
Crnf�
Fj
z
N y;
o>
z r-
M>QO
O z�e�
a+
it
IM0
;! %I M
L-
-0
c
v� r.
z >>X>
0 x n z
if 3 IV
mM
tU-1
e z
Mna
��
m
z
cn
zZ
aXG�>
�O
mm
ju
'd •
00� pNti
/ % , 7.3' `c
Zs /55! -a
7,,?MeLn
L I �
rTC/
zc N
en 2
n
_ == r'
A�>
r
20
; 9.m1
Q
�1K
O Ot
a z
Ot7O mzz
70,
x
>N
zip
2
O
�O
0.
3 z
[0
'
00
PO
`p
H O
C
C' z
NO
>
0
O
v,
Z oc3
Y
N
t
Z
I
39 � 87 i6-1S
'�.ItJ;1,Efi`,
e_
•r�f�ii.::
i1�1
C'
C:
CP
S
M 4
rn
a cn
N O
oLn
°c
N >
G to Ot
U M r 0C.
.» ib
0 cr 7;
m O ►- A
(l� 7 M X .+
<
Vs C R+
N
O
n
n
A
N
O
h
go
N.
R.
O
K
H
H
t�
N
w
a
H
ra
0
M
1A
c
04
N
z
O
2
74
9
c
X
m
:n
9
0
z
N_
z
r
m
Z
A
9
C
z
M
m
z
Z
m
m
z
A
C 0 v z > X 3'� n N
C -4 +�V-imm-- C�
t* Mt" M p1= m N Y f+f
inaNN> JO
z C) M t*r
C O
�7OM00�
< r< t-
z ic acws >�
_ '< N>Xm>en
y tr1 < g og
N Z
z .. -e >
� zM.��.{�g
> y m CM=mR<
0 re
z r>
nM
z N >n
to
"o 91* rn A
�-�•�m
V C) A Rf C7
lz
z�rf
o> 0 po
_CZz r JE� z�m
8 �g%H
OO
rA z.,n}°z
c ZM *3v
t» c M
N >
M n CZ Ndtn
-< >
>a
n
fq "N ■x�
K a *fry
cg mp
w A > > M A>>
z > z NMIo 36
c ° to
v _1Am
> >--
>
zo
<z=l
-1
rn
zz
`('
<om
U
0 0
PO
N-n
fa >
c
d�
MG
< -,:1
'I >
m
x O
nN
< m
l'L--,atc
w�
I (
E
/55'
W
N �
R
ti
-35
I& 39 87
i"1
i�
-0
•
cars u�i
cYi m
z
D�p
0
N
N >
c w
dD
fff
�A •-ov
.,
a
D
a
0 �
_c
M 0 eo_
6
A X
M
c' 0
0
.�
I
A i n
N
D
'
n
;
0
r.
A
z
>
p
ci=
r
&
O
c
m
z
0
C
?
71
m
z
r
ra
C
sn
C
>
m
Z
C
En
D
Q
y
CAM
M
M
<
m
C'
0
r
N
M
fb
Z
•
n,
u'
A
S�
w
P
w
N
z
m
>
m
l
17)
-C