Zoning Board of Appeals 25-1996DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
Matthew G. Sadowski, Plan Director
(414) 679-4136
AUGUST 26, 1996
Mr. Dean Wainscott
W190 S6401 Preston Lane
Muskego, WI 53150
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wainscott:
The Board of Appeals wishes to advise that your Appeal #25-96, was
approved as submitted.
Please be advised a building permit is required prior to commencing
building on your property.
Sincerely,
l
Susan J. S roeder
Recording Secretary
COPY
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue • Box 903 • Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 • Fax (414) 679-5614
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
DATE August 22, 1996 APPEAL # 25-96
NAME Dean Wainscott
ADDRESS W190 S6401 Preston Lane
Muskeqo, WI 53150
PROPERTY LOCATION ON WHICH VARIANCE IS REQUESTED
ADDRESS W190 S6401 Preston Lane
TYPE OF ZONING RS-3
Appeal # 25-96
Dean M. Wainscott,W190 S6401 Preston Lane, Muskego, requesting
under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions,
Petitioner seeks one (1) variance: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning
Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3) Building Location: Offsets. Said
regulation restricts the offset of any structure ten (10) feet
from the southern property line. Petitioner seeks a two (2)
foot offset variance to build an attached garage eight (8) feet
from the southern property line.
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3) Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation restricts the
offset of any structure ten (10) feet from the southern property line. Petitioner seeks a two (2) foot offset
variance to build an attached garage eight (8) feet from the southern property line.
Approved as submitted.
CHAIRMAN O'NEIL
VICE-CHAIRMAN S
MEMBER SCHNEIKE
MEMBER HERDA
MEMBER BRANDT
MEMBER SCHUST
MEMBER ROSS (
Secretary
Date
BOA 08/22/96
Page 2
a minimum 55 foot setback from the road center line.
Petitioner seeks a 35 foot variance to permit a detached
garage located 20 feet from the center of the road.
2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3)
Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation restricts
the offset of any structure five (5) feet from the
northern property line. Petitioner seeks a 2.7 foot
offset variance to build a detached garage 2.3 from the
northern property line.
Zoned: RS-3/OLS, 10,000 S.F. Suburban Residence
District with a Lake Shore Overlay
Appeal # 24-96
Harry Dumire
S64 W18808 School Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance:
1. Chapter 17--Zoninq Ordinance: Sections 4.05 (2) C.4
Accessory Uses and Structures: Permanent Structures.
Said regulation limits the size of a detached garage to
60% of the floor area of the principal building on the
lot. Petitioner seeks a T4V'square foot variance to
permit a -7-20 square foot garage (-75-�) detached garage.
4 7;.
Zoned: RS-3/OED, 11,750 S.F. Suburban Residence
District with a Lake Shore Overlay
Appeal # 25-96
Dean M. Wainscott
W190 S6401 Preston Lane
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance:
1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3)
Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation restricts
the offset of any structure ten (10) feet from the
southern property line. Petitioner seeks a two (2) foot
offset variance to build a detached garage eight (8) feet
from the southern property line.
Zoned: RS-3, 15,000 S.F. Suburban Residence District
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
center line of the road, measured to at least 35 feet from the
center line of the road, revising the request for a 20 foot
variance. The garage would be aligned with the existing retaining
wall and would be even with the existing neighboring garages. The
purpose of the 2.7 foot offset variance would allow the building
to line up with his existing building.
Mr. Trejo has received no comment from neighbors.
Appeal # 24-96 Harry Dumire, S64 W18808 School Drive,Muskego,
requesting under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal
Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance: 1. Chapter
17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 4.05 (2) C.4 Accessory Uses and
Structures: Permanent Structures. Said regulation limits the
size of a detached garage to 60% of the floor area of the
principal building on the lot. Petitioner seeks a 260 square foot
variance to permit a 840 square foot garage (87%) detached garage.
Mr. Trejo explained the zoning. He stated the house is smaller
than allowed in this district, which requires a minimum of 1,200
square feet. The proposed garage is 30'Deep x 24'Wide with access
off School Drive. No comments were received from the area
neighbors.
Mr. Schepp administer an oath to Mr. Dumire. Mr. Dumire stated he
intends to remove one of his sheds and relocate the one currently
near the house to the rear of the lot. He also stated this will
be the only garage on the property and would be comparable to the
size of his neighbors. His hardship is lack of storage due to the
small size of his home and lack of a basement.
Appeal # 25-96 Dean M. Wainscott,W190 S6401 Preston Lane,Muskego,
requesting under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal
Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance: 1. Chapter
17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3) Building Location:
Offsets. Said regulation restricts the offset of any structure
ten (10) feet from the southern property line. Petitioner seeks a
two (2) foot offset variance to build an attached garage eight (8)
feet from the southern property line.
Mr. Trejo explained the zoning, RS-3, there is a 10' and 15'
offsets. The lot has an irregular shape and the western portion
of the lot slopes. The adjoining lots are in a RS3-OED district,
which only require a 7.5 foot offset from the northern property
line. No comments were received from the neighbors.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Wainscott. Mr. Wainscott
stated he would add on to the existing garage to house a boat.
The hardship stated was the pre-existing location of the home, the
slope on the rear yard, and the lack of sufficient storage space.
DELIBERATION:
APPEAL #21-96,
Ms. Schuster made a motion to allow a variance to the 60% rule,
however, the deck may not encroach within the 50 foot setback on
the lake side. Mr. Schneiker seconded. The hardship is the
pre-existing location of the house and the narrowness of the lot.
The Board felt the variance would conform to the general character
of the area and would not pose a threat to public welfare or
safety. Upon roll call vote, the motion to grant the variance was
approved, with Mr. Schepp voting nay, stating the encroachment of
the deck within the 50' setback area is minimal and is creating a
less non -conforming situation than the existing one.
APPEAL #23-96
Mr. Schepp made a motion to accept the first request as amended.
The hardship being the narrow shape of the lot, the alignment with
other structures along Oak Grove Drive, and the extent of the
ultimate right-of-way on the lot. The Board felt the variance
would conform to the general character of the area and would not
pose a=threat to public welfare or safety. The second request
(location 2.7 feet offset variance), was denied, due to lack of a
hardship. Ms. Schuster made the seconded. Upon roll call vote,
the motion was approved unanimously.
APPEAL #24-96
Ms. Schuster made a motion to approve the amended variance
request. The hardship was the legal non -conforming size of the
primary structure, in which the ordinance does not take structure
size into account in Existing Development Districts. The Board
requested that one shed be removed at the time of construction.
The Board felt the variance would conform to the general character
of the area and would not pose a threat to public welfare or
safety. Mr. Ross seconded. Upon roll call vote, the motion was
approved unanimously.
APPEAL #25-96
Mr. Ross made a motion to accept the variance as requested. The
hardship being the location of existing house, the irregular shape
of the lot, the fact that the adjoining neighbor's zoning is
different and the topography of the lot. The Board felt the
variance would conform to the general character of the area and
would not pose a threat to public welfare or safety. Ms. Schuster
seconded. Upon roll call vote, the motion was approved
unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Schepp made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Schneiker
seconded. With no further business to come before the Commission,
the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. %Scroeder
;�'
Recording Secretary
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
Application for Variance
Applicants Name �(= Pt /l� W FATX) SLO I �
Subject Property Address: }S (o LAOlt eS�011--z`n�
Telephone V7 9 L4 b
Property Zoning fL5- _'� Key # 7 1 -7? CJ%_a_nL1
Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable):
owner lessee
Fees: $125.00
Date inspector denied permit:
other
Requesting variance to Section
To allow: a vaciaa a for as additional two feet We are proposing to
add on to our existing garage The variance if granted will
leave the distance of eight feet from the present lot line.
A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section
would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship
because: The `addition requested will be utilized to store our relatively
new Bass Boat. Due to the width of the boat we need the additional
footage in order to be able to store it away. This will give us
peace of mind toward any vandalism which may occur. By extending
n„r existing garage_ this will enhance the beauty of the neighborhood
as everything will be stored inside.
The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public
interest and will be in accord with the spirit of the code because:
This will be in accordence with the code because it will not take
away any value from the properties that are adjacent to our property.
We believe this is a better solution than storing the boat_ outside
with ^ tarp.
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety
or jeopardize public welfare because:
The addition will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize
_public welfare because there is adequate snarP between nur home
and the road By blending this addition to our existing building
the dimensions from our present structure to the road will remain
the same
>
Z
-!•ram
y
�,- :.�
N �
�• 71
r
{
I
(1
m
o- s
Z
p
n o ?
o v
.`3L`aQoa �
N
�
3 a-
-4
m
L.
_o
carr Q
a
a '�
< n
u
1
v
< ,
o
b
^
�_
r
a 7 a C
v? a
,+
>
—
a•
It
rr
F s thp
2 n
al
.o
a
A
C
*w
z
r7l
Io
Z
I
'
4
0
Ir
lz
1N
1rt':
In
O
To
s
w
13
UP B'
a s' cL�V. 627. 7 =
1
Q
m r
O' «�
44.00
7id.44�
lSl
n
Z
O
IN`
z � T
-1m �
�.
,t
_
0 TIN J
N ^
7 L1
' �
P R ES TO N �_`L A E
a�cf57iNG DI j u►An ?4-U� .rJ Sd1Cr=dCE
N E.X�STIh1G �8 3,41.i. S�WcrZ
L G k!-. &+2.o 5
I MN. Iz1hS _L.8'yB.2(
I i4
w n
y (D N
r•
G. F•.
M
()
O -
C � fD
1< rj
Z' D
O
En ��
n
d �- -- z
�..�
0 Z
ew
I"n cv, I
C..►.
�f
row
a..
s_
--��
o
U)
m
O
D
Z
Z
L7
v`
;•
114 44'
r, -
j �
� �
lSl
• tin � ^ i 5S
n r;
y
_ mi
a- i n
m `3 r. .�
,n
C�
P. a 1
J�
�,.-,
CP I m p
O j` r
- �- r
a t� 0 2 i�
n• I
o C a
era
.n
4. v�
p r —;
�N @
rD
M
m
tA
m
o
`` 1 I �A
-{m`
S o zl
m
_
1_o��
O' 2.0
44.00' I m
_
s
2�
Is
Tf
k;
TZ So
r N A a
o, F
N r
m m
"` C,
O -zlev
�i
1i1
a
44.
Zn
—
Dol
Op N
►..!
9 or' ra' 14-"
g7 1t'
WPR- E-STON
b
LA E_
�.
_
C�1�7c,e- UP B [x1yT,t1G
DI ; Ur.nlnlo''�i .��
5 (19FrACs
.
-LEV. 527.7 = t 49. Io
V
1�
EXIsTrNc
8" SAM. 66WEZ
�
NtN. rrr�t
EL.836.2!
'
Lc FcL. d42.c5
N'
L%ir
_o
iv
w
c�
O
iv
Orb a.
-51
Cf)
Z4�
D
✓1
V
C
~
Z
Z
�
—
z
�
\fi
C �dCOY
"d
0
C--D