ZBA-Minutes 26-1989October 30, 1989
Mr. Richard Schlei
W172 S7645 Lannon Drive
Muskego, W1 53150
Dear Mr. Schlei:
This is to inform you that at the Board of Appeals Meeting on
10/26/89 the Board approved your request for a side offset
variance of 6 1/2' and rear offset variance of 10' to construct a
12' x 18' storage structure.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Schmidt
Recording Secretary
cc: Gerald Fohr
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 26, 1989.
Chairman Gerald Fohr called the meeting,to order at 7:30 P.M.
-PRESENT: - Chairman Gerald Fohr, Vice Chairman Thomas Berken,
Lloyd Erno, Terry O'Neil, Donald Pionek, Daryl Rowinski, Bonnie
-Posbrig and Director Gerald Lee.
ABSENT: No one.
MINUTES: Mr. Berken moved to adopt the Minutes of the September
28 1989 neeting. Mr. Pionek seconded. Upon a voice vote the
notion passed unanimously.
The Board also discussed the request from Mr. & Mrs. White
concerning a change in the 12/8/88 Board of Appeals Minutes for
Appeal 23-88. Mr. Fohr made a motion to amend the 12/8/89
Minutes to delete the words which referenced Mr. White as having
"wrote a letter to the Building Inspection Office questioning the
3' -offset for the turn -around." Mr. Berken seconded. Upon a
voice vote the motion to amend the 12/8/89 Minutes -passed
%knanimausly. The recording- secretary was requested to send Mr. &
Ars. White a copy of the amended -minutes.
APPEAL 26-89 -- RICHARD SCHLEI - Chairman Fohr requested
Mr. Schlei statehis-ease and hardship. Mr. Schlei stated that -
= he wished to construct the 12' x 18' storage structure to store
his lawnaowers, garden tools, etc. The structure will be on a
-slab. His hardship is that this spot -is the only level area he
has and he would keep his structure in line with,his neighbor's
shed. Mr. Lee said that this is in RS-3 zoning requiring 10' and
-15'_offsets. This lot is a conforming lot and he explained the ,
-reasons for the variance request. Mr. Pionek questioned the
neighbor's offset for his shed. Mr. Schlei responded that it is
probably a 10' x 12' shed. Mr. Lee stated that it could be
located within 31. Mr. Rowinski questioned if the size was
factor in the request. Mr. Lee responded that a structure under
1.20 square feet could be within 3' of the lot line, but Mr.
Schlei has to conform to the offsets because he is over that
size. The Plan Commission gave Mr. Schlei architectural approval
..subject to the Board of Appeals approval on October 17, 1989.
Mr. Berken asked how many vacant lots are behind Mr. Schlei. Mr.
" Schlei responded that there was one. Mr. Erno requested that
house numbers be provided to -enable people to find the house more
easily.* Mr. Francesco Sanfillippo, W177 S7859 Canfield Dr.,
.Muskego expressed his opinion that if you make this change for
one person, you will have to do it for more. He lives in the
Kristin Downs Subdivision, which has deed restrictions. There
being no further discussion, the appellant was informed he could
call -the Building -Inspection Office in the morning for a decision
or -wait for the decision to be mailed to him.within 5 days.
Page 2, BOA Minutes 10/26/89
APPEAL 27-99 -- ST. PAUL_'S CHURCH ___& SCHOOL - Chairman
Fohr requested Mr. Lee bring the Board up to date on 01is
appeal. Mr. Lee stated that he reviewed the Rules of Procedure
adopted by the Board of Appeals in May 1968. He stated that in
Section 3 (a) Every appeal shall be taken within 20 days from the
date of refusal of any order, ruling, decision or determination
from which the appeal was taken. A written appeal must be filed
within 20 days to the officer from whose decision the appeal is
made. When the Fire Department Chief was notified that the
church was appealing, he obtained a copy of the rules and asked
that the City Attorney review the letter of acceptance of the
plan from the Fire Chief and the letter requesting an appeal from
the church which were one month apart. It appeared that the
Chief had accepted the church's plan and, therefore, no need for
an appeal. The church was then notified and they had their
attorney call the City Attorney. The City Attorney thought the
Board should adjourn the case until if and when the Chief had
received and rejected a plan that the church had submitted. The
time of filing then could be extended based on both parties
agreeing.
Chief Dibb responded that he hasn't seen a new plan from the
church. Mr. Lee stated that the City Attorney said that the
Board could move to refund the $35.00 appeal fee. Chief Dibb
explained his part in this appeal. First the plans were
submitted and approved. Then, Mr. Heilmann questioned the
requirements. He has a problem with the Board "adjourning" this
appeal as he feels it would indicate that he had rejected the
church's plan, when he hasn't. The contractor (Anderson -Ashton)
were to provide the church with a "turn -key" operation. Chief
Dibb has talked with the contractor and attended meetings with
church representatives where minutes of the meeting were taken.
He has not turned down a plan submitted by the church. He feels
that the chairman of the church building committee is not
satisfied with the plans which were approved and wants to make
changes. He is unsure if the committee shares the chairman's
views. Mr. O'Neil asked Chief Dibb if he has any objection to
refunding the appeals fee? Chief Dibb stated that he did not
object. Chief Lloyd Pickart was also present and asked if he
could show a film strip on fire protection systems in action.
The Board had no objection to seeing the film strip following all
the appeal cases being presented.
Page 4, Board of Appeals Minutes 10/26/89
Vice Chairman Berken moved to go into Closed Session pursuant
Secrion 19.85 (1)(a) of the State Statutes for the purpose of
dEliUE:oLl.'lY� CV":CEi"�i`i�; L��ES ��.i�:1' :-'err '_�,E s.u�;�• L -.F
aquasidudicial hearing; said cases being the above listed
appeals. Chairman Fohr seconded and the notion carried
unanimously upon a voice vote.
The Board took a break at 8:35 P.M.
The Board reconvened into Open Session at 8:45 P.M.
APPEAL 26-89 - After a brief discussion Mr. Erno made a
motion to grant the appeal as requested. Mrs. Posbrig
seconded. The hardship being the way the land slopes to the
north of the proposed shed. Upon a roll call vote the motion
passed unanimously.
to
APPEAL 27-89 - After a brief discussion Chairman Fohr made a
motion to re and the S35.00 appeal fee the reason being that
there was no reason for the appeal. Mr. Berken seconded. Upon a
voice vote the motion passed unanimously.
APPEAL 28-89 - Mr. Rowinski stated that since he was a
member of the Kristin Downs Subdivision Architectural Control
Board he would abstain from voting. He wanted to give the Board
a little background information. He received a call from Mr.
Ellwitz and didn't hear from him again until he received his
packet in the mail with the request on the agenda. The
Architectural Control Board will have to take up the larger size
garage request, as only 2 1/2 car garages are allowed. No sheds
are allowed on the lots. They could override tht Board of Appeals
decision. Mr. Er -no stated that we are only concerned with the
varia_-zce from the road and the city offsets. Mr. O'Neil made a
motion to grant the appeal as requested. Mr. Pionek seconded.
The hardship being the lack of storage area. Upon a roll call
vote the motion passed unanimously.
The Board decided to hold their Joint November/December meeting
on December 7, 1989 at 7:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT;
Chairman Fohr moved to
Berken seconded. Upon
unanimously.
/cs
adjourn the meeting at 9:15 P.M. Mr.
a voice vote the motion carried
Respectfully Submitted
Cheryl Schmidt
Recording Secretary
i
F4a3/�
— — Z,.
t
A
o
t
�
0
Oj
Q
I
t
j
0
{
�o
a
BY-------------- DATE--------- SUBJECT----------------------------------------- SHEET NO ---------- OF.------
CHKD. BY------- DATE--------- ------------------------------------- JOB NO. --------------------
--------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- -----------------------------
0
n
NA
A
Z
C
k.
R
r
I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
ON 80f-------------------------------------------------------------31Va-------AS -a N H 7
-------A0--------- *ON 133HS-----------------------------------------173fans ---------31Va--------------AS
E
0
T-
'r A
�`
rL
C
-------------------- ON 8or
------ JO--------- 'ON 133HS
--------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------31Va-------AB GMH7
-----------------------------------------1z)3rens ---------31da --------------AB
t rr C
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
----- ----------------------------------------------------
ON sor
------ �0----- - ON 133H5 -- -------------------------------1Z)3rans -------- 31d❑ --------- -----AB