Zoning Board of Appeals 28-1997CITY OF DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
Matthew G. Sadowski, AICP
KDirector of Planning
"4- -�K (414) 679-4136
Mr. Mark Pizur
W147 S7272 Durham Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
RE: Appeal # 28-97
Dear Mr. Pizur:
The Board of Appeals wishes to advise your appeal from Section 6.01
(7) B.2, Permitted Accessory Uses was denied due to the lack of
hardship.
Should you have any questions, please contact Carlos Trejo at
679-5674.
Sincerely,
Susan J. Schroeder
Recording Secretary
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue • Box 903 a MuskeRo, Wisconsin 53150-0903 • Fax (414) 679-5614
Appeal #28-97
Mark Pizur
W 147 S7272 Durham Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
Tax Key No. 2201.989
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the
following one (1) variance:
1. Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 8.01 (7) B.2, Permitted Accessory Uses. Said regulation
states that the total floor area of all outbuildings combined shall not exceed 1.0% of the lot area.
Petitioner seeks. a 160 square foot variance to construct a 600 square foot accessory building.
(zoning requirement is 1,520 s.f.)
Zoned : RS-2, Suburban Residence
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Approve as submitted. Lack of a hip was
Denied
Chairman O'Neil
-Al,/,Wj � Denied
Vice Chairman Brandt
Absent
Member Ross
Denied
Denied
Schneiker
Denied
Member Conley (1 st
Absent
Member Herda (2nd Alt.)
Kozlik proposed an additional outbuilding 2,080 square feet with
a 17 foot roof peak. The building will be used for storing a
yard tractor, bikes, snowmobiles, boat, canoe and various other
things. The roof has a 5/12 pitch so that a second level of
storage may be accommodated. The proposed canopy attached to
the outbuilding will be used as a planting area. The building
is compatible to others around the area.
Mr. Trejo stated this lot is legal nonconforming lot with only
2.3 acres; the RCE district requiring 2.75 acres and a 250
average minimum width. Mr. Trejo described the stated hardships
as a wish list, and these do not justify a reasoning for
granting a variance. The real problem here, specific to this
request, is the ordinance requirements. The Board is not here
to develop or compromise the ordinance, but to enforce the
requirements as they are, unless a reasonable hardship can be
justified. If the ordinance does not accommodate this specific
lot, the the appellant should be working to change the
ordinance, either with council or within the proper committees.
Claiming an ordinance is not allowing him the size of building
he is requesting is not a hardship.
Mr. Kozlik stated his hardship is the 60% ordinance, which only
takes into account the foot print of his home, not the rest of
the finished area of the residence. His residence can not be
increased in size. The building would be no different from
other outbuildings in the area and would not be contrary to the
spirit of the code or conflict with the public interest.
Appeal # 28-97
Nark Oizur, W147 S7272 Durham Drive, Tax Key No. 2201.989 Under
the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, petitioner
seeks the following one (1) variance: Chapter 17--Zoning
Ordinance: Section 8.01 (7) B.2, Permitted Accessory Uses. Said
regulation states that the total floor area of all outbuildings
combined shall not exceed 1.0% of the lot area. Petitioner
seeks a 160 square foot variance to construct a 600 square foot
accessory building. (zoning requirement is 1,520 s.f.) The
property is zoned RS-2, Suburban Residence.
Mr. Brandt administered an oath to Mr. Pizur. Mr. Pizur stated
he purchased this property in 1988, with the intent to have
horses in the future. He currently has one outbuilding that
houses antique cars and is not set up to house horses. This lot
is 3.5 acres allowing for 3 horses. The size restriction would
not allow for the proper housing of the horses.
Mr. Trejo stated Plan Commission approved of an outbuilding up
to the permitted size; however, it deferred the additional size
up to 600 square feet if the petitioner could justify a hardship
to the Board. Mr. Trejo questioned why couldn't Mr. Pizur add
on to the existing outbuilding? Once again, the hardship here
is the ordinance, and the Board is here to enforce the ordinance
as it stands, unless an undo hardship can be provided. The
petitioner still has 440 square feet to utilize for additional
outbuildings, allowing still the alternatives to convert, modify
or reduce the existing structure. Staff does not see a hardship.
Mr. Pizur stated that his hardship is lack of storage and that
the ordinance permits horses, yet does not provide for their
care. The building would benefit the area in terms of its
appearance, he has a large lot and it will be well off view from
Durham, and would be in the public's interest in terms he would
have a well kept lot.
Appeal #29-97
Dean A. Lubecke, W183 56526 Jewel Crest Drive Tax Key #2194.168
Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions,
Petitioner seeks one (1) variance: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning
Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A. Legal Nonconformity:
Classification and Regulation - Nonconforming Structure. Said
regulation restricts expansion or enlargement of a nonconforming
structure except within conformity of the zoning district.
Petitioner seeks to repair, alter, and expand said structure
over 50% of its current fair market value. The property is
zoned RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore
Overlay.
Chairman O'Neil stepped down during this appeal, citing that the
appellant is his neighbor.
Vice Chairman Brandt administered an oath to Mr. and Mrs. Dean
Lubecke and Terry O'Neil (neighbor). Attorney Jim Gatzke
accompanied Mr. Lubecke, to provide Board members with
information. Two plans had been submitted, one depicting the
residence as it stands now and one which removed a portion of
the second level in the legal nonconforming area. Mr. Gatzke
stated that Mr. Lubecke has improved a derilic structure that
has been an eye sore for years. A letter from a neighboring
resident and an article from the local newspaper were
submitted. Mr. Lubecke would like to continue and finish what
he has already done. The hardship is the unique shape of the
lot and it location. The two existing streets accommodate the
structure, but when the ultimate right-of-way is taken into
account, the structure is rendered half useable. Mr. Lubecke is
willing to remove the garage, opening the vision site, clear
away the brush and remove the berms, in order to be allowed to
finish the project he started. Mr. Gatzke stated the neighbors
are not in opposition of the proposed work. The removal of the
garage would enhance health and safety in the area. Dean Lubecke
stated no matter who owned this property, a variance would be
required because of the 50% rule. Mr. Lubecke state he would do
whatever it takes to make the City happy, including obtaining a
razing permit to remove the garage.
Mr. Trejo stated Mr. Lubecke was granted a permit to extend the
foundation on the conforming portion of the home. During work
on the foundation, the petitioner exceeded the permitted work
and was halted from any further construction. The city had
obtained an estimate for the work performed from an independent
contractor. This estimate exceeded the 50% rule in terms of the
structural work performed.
Mr. O'Neil spoke on behalf of the residents in the area. He
stated this structure has not been inhabited for many years. He
has boarded up windows and painted over graffiti for many
years. In his opinion, hardship for this property is the
location of the preexisting structure, the lot being bordered by
two streets and the fact a permit had been previously issued by
the Building Department.
Mr. Gatzke stressed that it was not the intent of Mr. Lubecke to
violate the 50% rule. He stated that the rule, as it reads, is
confusing. He understands that it is common and that
contractors and builders probably have some sort of
understanding of its concept, but to a common resident, it makes
little sense.
DELIBERATIONS - Since there was nobody in the audience
awaiting deliberation on their appeal, Attorney Gatzke requested
if the Board would deliberate Appeal #29-97, first.
Appeal #29-97
Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve the appeal as submitted, Mr.
Schneiker seconded. Discussion ensued over the following
hardships: 1) miscommunication with previous building permit
issued, 2) loss of use of home and 3) location of lot on two
roads and shape of lot. Mr. Schepp amended is motion to
included that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
appellant will have to remove the existing garage located near
the intersection, and remove the existing brush and berm located
along Jewel Crest Drive, Mr. Schneiker seconded. Furthermore,
the house is to be reconfigured as submitted in the alternate
plan that removes a portion of the nonconforming second level.
Upon roll call vote, the motion carried. (4-0)
Mr. O'Neil resumed chairmanship.
APPEAL #27-97 Mr. Brandt made a motion to approve the appeal as
submitted, Mr. Conley seconded. Discussion ensued over the
hardships stated by the appellant and the limitations set by the
ordinance. Upon a roll call vote, the motion was denied. (5-0)
APPEAL #28-97 Mr. Brandt made a motion to approve appeal as
submitted, Mr. Schneiker seconded. Discussion ensued over the
hardships stated by the appellant and the limitations set by the
ordinance. Upon a roll call vote, the motion was denied. (5-0)
Miscellaneous Business:
Appeal #26-97, The Board agreed to rehear the appellant's
request in the next meeting. Items in regards to rules and
procedures were deferred until the next meeting.
Mr. Trejo informed the Board in regards to a recent court case
limiting city officials access onto private property. The
current Board forms will be revised to contain a statement
AGENDA
CITY OF MUSKEGO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HERESY 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, W 182 S8200 Racine Avenue, at 7:00 P.M.,
Thursday, October 30. 1997, 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 SEPTEMBER 25, 1997, MEETING
S. OLD BUSINESS
• Request to reconsider Appeal 426-97
• Signing of decision letters for August.
6. NEW BUSINESS
Amended Appeal #27-97
Frank Kozlik
S67 W21091 Tans Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
Tax Key No. 2184.995
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the
following two (2) variances:
1) 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 504
square foot variance to construct a 2,080 square foot accessory building. (zoning requirement is
1,696 s.f.)
2) Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.03 Height. No structure shall be erected or
structurally altered to a height in excess of that hereinafter specified by the regulations of that
district. Petitioner seeks a 2 foot variance to construct an accessory building 17 feet in height.
(zoning requirement is 15 feet)
Zoned: RCE. Country Estate
Appeal # 2S-97
Mark Pizur
W 147 S7272 Durham Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
Tax Key No. 2201.989
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions. Petitioner seeks the
following one (1) variance:
BOA 10/23/97
Page 2
1) Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 8.01 (7) B.2, Permitted Accessory Uses. Said
regulation states that the total floor area of all outbuildings combined shall not exceed 1,0% of
the lot area. Petitioner seeks a 160 square foot variance to construct a 600 square foot
accessory building. (zoning requirement is 1,520 sT)
Zoned : RS-2, Suburban Residence
Appeal #29-97
Dean A. Lubecke
W 183 S6526 Jewel Crest Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance:
1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A. Legal Nonconformity: Classification and Regulation
- Nonconforming Structure. Said regulation restricts expansion or enlargement of a nonconforming
structure except within conformity of the zoning district. Petitioner seeks to repair, alter, and expand said
structure over 50%of its current fair market value.
Zoned: RS-310LS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay.
7. Miscellaneous Business.
• Review information for revised rules and procedures, application form and handouts
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
Terry O'Neil, Chairman
Dated this 17th day of October, 1997
PLEASE NOTE: 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 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 Jean
K. Marenda, City Clerk, at Muskego City Hall, 679-5625.
Also, Board of Appeals members may conduct site visits for informational purposes.
r,r
CITY OF MUSKEGO tf
BOARD OF APPEALS
Application for Variance
Applicants Name ���ft/� %-�IZ-IJ%%
Subject Property Address: U)1y 7 S 7.�721- kve ieq P
Telephone �-2- `0122_
Property Zoning Key #
Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable):
owner lessee other
Fees: $195.00
Date inspector denied permit:
Requestinq variance to Section
To allow:
1
1
A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section
would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship
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:
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety
or jeopardize public welfare because:
Design #:174781 "
* * This sheet must be faxed to Midwest Manufacturing for custom mini -print
These are the materials you have selected:
You have selected a 30' x-'x 10' post frame building. The options you have chosen are:
9' Truss Spacing, 291b Truss load, 4 x 12 Pitch - Miscellaneous Service Doors
The Pro -Rib Panel Colors You Have Chosen Are: - End Caps
- Walls = = > light Gray
- Roof = _ > White
- Trim =_> Charcoal Gray
Ridgelite
Galvanized Neoprene Washer Screws for the Roof {Best)
Galvanized Neoprene Washer Screws for the Walls (Best)
Bottom Trim
12" Front Sidewall Overhang, 12" Back Sidewall Overhang
No Front Endwall Overhang, No Back Endwall Overhang
White Soffit Color
Inside Closure Strips
3 - Non -insulated Ribbed White Overhead Door(s)
Contractor Trim For Overhead Door(s)
Custom Mini -Print To Aid In Construction
Front View:
Sidewall : Endwall :
- 9' x 7' Overhead 7e DP - No Doors
- 9' x 7' Overhead 192` DP
- 9' x r Overhead 312" DP
** DP = = > (D)oor (P)lacament, from the loft side of the well (in Inches).
9/4/1997
Back View:
Sidewall : Eadwdl:
- No Doors - No Doors
Door placemewt is based oa Midwest Moaafectariag specifications bat can be customized to roar specifications at the Building Materials coeater.
Ash a Building Materials associate for details!
For Midwest Manufacturing use only :
Selection Code : 023003610011TWHCH0200000002020102o011WHo1ol02Wo00000Eoo0000N000000SOla10101020o
Options Code : 000000000000000000020000
DW Code : D1[02
"The hose price iecledes:'dvanized steel siding and roor1q, gelwanized rUja cep, x BAS E price) 6 $3127.55
white corner end pile trim.
ERT KLENZ REACT Y
DURHAb1 DR AND WOODS RD ,
ROBERT KLENZ REALTY
S. 76 W. 17587 Janesville Road,
Muskego. Wl 53150
(414) 679-9400
(4 parcels of land) Northeast corner
4 level sewered large �car-c-els available for i�Tr12-diate building. Yceaz _`cr
solar construction. ,(Horses'permitted, (I horse per acre). Sewer is in road,
buyer to install lateral-.-, c;t•r of Muskero is cante-+nlatina passing an
ordinance which world recuire a total sewer hookup cost of S24M per carcei
pryo-ble when building permit taken out_. � _
Parcel 1: $30,500 3.49 acre !`
Parcel 2: $29, 900 3.26 acres
Parcel 3: $36, 900 3.95 acres (c-, be re*?ivided into two 2 acre sites)
parcel. 4: $30, 900 3.53 acres
' Y!".E.: There shall be no further redDyisions of parCe7 � _, 2 are L
20B F:Lv`d7 679-169q / 679•-4400
'nI
1
I
1
.S�.qn Of �.•,le Ci✓li��
�/11.•c .ou�er Cocr„rro
l
�,,VC .e
A4.1.1,
!I
I
1
CE..Z 77,4�1 cA2 T e
i
JCS :NAf.1:JJrii'v6y .oA/C+ .v.�,ac.yrrr :�,� Ccr:.Fr j7/owr riE N. AvE SvxLrOVt,v JA/t-
A. •3a✓E ♦`��lf..l./Se/j f'/ 's•<2ry .in./O •!t .P!ir-'i wfa �J A i U� /fPfiteSJ�7V%e.T7d�1
;tr�dfa/ .s.+u JH✓w/ 77sf ✓ilr. A/v:, <<,,,,o�O�J r.Va I�,cafi'Yl7y if3 G`xT�P/A�
rWe- Z---.vr7unJ ogAo o.-Lrew.-cAYJ d 11/r/l3ee sntucTU.2cJ 7f +2�da/
00o"OvC4- � .4rrtn6.vT �i»[!»tN7S • y.� .[O�?l]l✓ i:rr 9A a 11'/J/i7rE �•v�A`CaK.�s•rJ.=+�/�.S '
/f RNTY Yl/.'J Jve[�i?-y /J /�:'qL� F.sc 7a+E GY C-c:.• ilJt UJa� �+t 77•+C t'/Pcr1c'n�T fi.�s.J.tl6R.f
77l4f 1"006AE/1G 77r A At, n+ 7T=Lv' 7H6
ai! 7tC Oit fTli � IJ+vr� l/rJ.Er r
INMAN SURVEY
ASSOCIATES, INC
, ♦.
ti '•; Y 4 i - 3C+ �4J
� 1
1
�• Jj O4
�v-776 yG
i
i
c
O
1.4
i 4L
4�
,6Fi 3
4
a
Irk' .�14r� - 1 �• �` 3
�A� of ..••r. a�..r-..,rj -
.�/J1'..c
t cr��✓7.4o4c
/1; � a67-F fT
No 7E
6349 /.Y
+
`F!
1
T
CC
ss i
Cer,.rr f7✓rrr rvF r+9vE �a.cvEYf� :ate
Acn
T,ZIEri f0/ ii r✓U Jy�s✓.! l7+fF JlI� ANc, !t'', p,+70tiJ 'F 7ib 6' /piCGFt�
ti�SaG.�J;�.q/1.,�-� r.✓t- c.«..vrrun! �; rTJ �Td+PipQ
cr✓cr S! "0 Sri 6 rvT sntu [rV2c-,I 7:rlj5,260j
!F gNYY ti! E F.t/�A'�Q ,yrri,_nr7s
C80- 74
i+r,; 0
=nirII-In