Zoning Board of Appeals 31-1996C/ / 9 4 5 17�, 11dYiq ,
CITY OF-.MUSKEGQ
-
October 24, 1996
Mr. and Mrs. David Stawski
10010 W. Edgerton Avenue
Hales Corners, WI 53130
RE: Appeal #31-96
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stawski:
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
Matthew G. Sadowski, Plan Director
(414) 679-4136
The Board of Appeals wishes to advise that your appeal from Chapter
16, section 16.20, was denied, due to the lack of a hardship. If
you have any further questions, please contact Carlos Trejo for
information (679-5674).
Sincerely,
r-
Susan J. Schroeder
Recording Secretary
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue • Box 903 • Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 + Fax (414) 679-5614
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
DATE OCTOBER 24 1996 APPEAL #31-96
NAME DAVID AND MARY STAWSKI
ADDRESS W198 56776 ADRIAN DRIVE
MUSKEGO WI 53150
PROPERTY LOCATION ON WHICH VARIANCE IS REQUESTED
ADDRESS W198 S6776 ADRIAN DRIVE
Appeal #31-96
Requesting under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal
Provisions, one (1) variance:
1. Chapter 16--Plumbing Code: Sections 16.20 Discharge of Clear
Water Sump Pumps, said regulation requires all sump pumps
installed for the purpose of discharging clear water from
foundation drains and ground infiltration to connect to the
City storm sewer via underground drain pipe. Both petitioners
seek not to install a drain pipe and connect to the storm sewer.
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
1. Chapter 17--Soninq Ordinance: Secticns 5.02 13) Building 7 cat' n: Offsets. .aid regulaticn restricts
the offset of any structure ten (10) feet from the southern property line. retJ__icner seeks a two (2) foot
offset variance to build an attached garage eight (8) fee_ from the southern property line.
Denied as submitted for lack of hardship.
CHAIRMAN O'NEIL
VICE-CHAIRMAN SCHEPP
MEMBER SCHNEIKER
MEMBER HERDA
MEMBER BRANDT Ifl4:
MEMBER SCHUSTER (1st. Alt.
MEMBER ROSS (2nd Alt.) ell
L
Approved
Denied
C'�
CITY OF 14USKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 24, 1996
PRESENT: Chairman Terry O'Neil, Michael Brandt, Dan Schepp, Ed
Herda, and James Ross.
ABSENT: Heather Schuster and Henry Schneiker
MINUTES: Chairman O'Neil made a motion to defer the minutes of
September 26, 1996, meeting till the December 12, 1996 meeting.
Brandt seconded. Upon voice vote the minutes of September 26,
1996, meeting were deferred unanimously.
Decision letters from the September 26, 1996, meeting were signed.
OLD BUSINESS:
Appeal # 27-96 Dennis G. Cindric, S70 W19099 Wentland Drive,
Muskego, WI, 53150. The petitioner is requesting under the
direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, one (1) variance:
1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3) Building
Location: Offsets, said regulation restricts the offset of any
structure 4.3 feet from the eastern property line. Petitioner
seeks a zero (0) foot offset variance to build a detached garage
on the eastern property line.
Mr. Cindric was deferred from the September meeting and was
advised to submit a new survey to determine the exact distance
from the eastern property line. The new survey showed a 0.7 foot
offset to the east. Mr. Cindric stated he remodeled his home with
the understanding from the previous Director of the Building
Department that he would be able to replace a then existing
nonconforming detached garage; a correspondence letter addressing
the issue was provided by Mr. Cindric's, then, realtor.
Alterations to the home now would not accommodate an attached
garage.
NEW BUSINESS
Appeal # 28-96 Donald M. Peil, W194 S7057 Hillendaie Drive,
Muskego, WI, 53150. The petitioner is requesting under the
direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, two (2)
variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3)
Building Location: Offsets, said regulation restricts the offset
of any structure 15 feet from the northern property line; 2.
Chapter 17 --Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.03 (1) Height: Maximum
Height Restricted. Petitioner seeks a nine (9) foot offset
variance to permit an accessory structure six (6) feet from the
northern property line and restricts the height of any accessory
structure to 15 feet. Petitioner seeks a two (2) foot height
variance to permit an accessory structure with a 17 foot height.
Mr. Peil was removed from the agenda due to the Plan Commission
denying the request for an accessory structures; therefore, the
Board may not hear this appeal at this time.
BOA 10/24/96
Page 2
Appeal # 29-96 James and Shirley Bartsch, S73 W16453 Vine Street
Muskego, WI, 53150. The petitioner is requesting under the
direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, two (2)
variances: 1. Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance: Sections 5.02 (1)
Building Location: Setbacks, said regulation restricts the
setback of any structure 32 feet from the road right-of-way.
Petitioner seeks a 16 foot setback variance to construct an
attached garage 16 feet from the road right-of-way. 2. Chapter
17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3) Building Location:
Offsets, said regulation restricts the offset of any structure
13.4 feet from the eastern property line. Petitioner seeks a 7.4
foot offset variance to construct an attached garage six (6) feet
from the eastern property line.
Mr. Trejo explained the RS-2 zoning, 20,000 S.F. Suburban
Residence District and how the existing homes west of the subject
parcel were setback roughly 35 feet or more, rather than the
required 40 foot setback.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mrs. Bartsch.
Mrs. Bartsch questioned the distance from her existing home to the
center of the road. She presented an aerial photograph showing
the neighbors setback and the subject residence. Mr. Trejo
produced the neighbor's and owner's plats of survey. Discussion
ensued over a discrepancy between the surveys and the aerial
photo. Mrs. Bartsch was requested to provide a new survey, but
advised to use a different surveyor, as where the present surveys
were both done by the same individual. Mr. Brandt made a motion
to defer Appeal #29-96 with a 90 day option to return to the Board
of Appeals. A new survey was requested showing the subject
property and the location of the neighboring residences. Mr.
Schepp seconded. Upon roll call vote, the motion to defer was
passed unanimously.
Appeal # 30-96 Robert J. Winiarski, W180 56865 Muskego Drive,
Muskego, WI, 53150. The petitioner is requesting under the
direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks
one (1) variance: 1. Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance: Sections 9.04
(7) E.1 OLS Lake Shore District: Lake Shore Offset, said
regulation restricts the offset of any structure 50 feet from the
shore line. Petitioner seeks a 3 foot offset variance to permit
an attached deck 47 feet from the lake shore.
Mr. Trejo explained the RS-3/OLS zoning, 10,000 S.F. Suburban
Residence District in a Lake Shore Overlay and noted that the deck
had not been built as stated in the notice.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Winiarski. Mr. Winiarski
stated he measured the distance from the post holes to the
shoreline and determined he was in conformance. The building
inspector, when doing a footing inspection, discovered deck was
too close to the shoreline. Mr. Winiarski stated he wants a deck
upstairs to enjoy the view of the lake, just like his neighbor's
have. He also noted they are closer to the lake than he is
preparing to build. The deck is to be built over the patio and
BOA 10/24/96
Page 3
there is not any alternate location to place the post holes, would
be in conformance with his neighbor's and would not adversely
affect the character to the neighborhood.
Appeal # 31-96 and #34-96 David and Mary Stawski, W198 S6776
Adrian Drive, Muskego, WI, 53150 and Peter J. Dargiewicz, W124
S7193 Skylark Lane, Muskego, WI, 53150. Mr. Trejo asked the
Board, that if the petitioners consent, if both appeals could be
addressed together since they deal with the same matter. Both
petitioners agreed.
The petitioners are requesting under the direction of Section 3.08
(1) Appeal Provisions, one (1) variance: 1. Chapter 16--Plumbing
Code: sections 16.20 Discharge of Clear Water Sump Pumps, said
regulation requires all sump pumps installed for the purpose of
discharging clear water from foundation drains and ground
infiltration to connect to the City storm sewer via underground
drain pipe. Both petitioners seek not to install a drain pipe and
connect to the storm sewer.
Mr. Trejo explained the RS-1 zoning for the Stawski parcel and the
RS-2 zoning of the Dargiewics lot. Both were newly created lots
that are conforming and both contain new residential structures
that are conforming.
Mr. Schepp swore in Mr. and Mrs. Stawski, Mrs. Dargiewicz
(Appellant #34-96) and Ms. Mary Lytle.
Mr. Trejo explained City Ordinance #756, 08-11-92. Both
developments are required to install storm drainage
infrastructure. Appeals to this ordinance were taken before the
Public Works Director and Public Works Committee. In both cases,
they were deferred to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Trejo read a
letter received from Public Works Director John Loughney. Mr.
Loughney cautioned the Board of Appeals to deal with these two
variances separately.
Mr. Stawski stated his hardship is that fact the pipes are already
installed on his property and the site has been graded. According
to Mr. Stawski, Mr. Loughney was at the site at the time of the
installation of the pipes, and supported the idea of the
contractor that there would be no problem with surface discharge.
Mr. Stawski stated to install new pipes now would ruin nine trees
on his lot and accrue additional costs. Mr. Stawski stated there
has been no water in his sump crock.
Ms. Mary Lytle, the neighbor north of the Stawski parcel, is
concerned with such a large roof and the addition of the sump
crock discharge, that the run off would be considerable. She
further stated that every spring her lot is wet and since more
trees have been cut down the wetness will be increased.
Mrs. Dargiewicz stated the drainage detention pond is at the rear
of her lot and the sump crock discharge would be directed to the
storm sewer in front of her lot and then redirected to the creek
BOA 10/24/96
Page 4
behind her lot. There makes no sense to direct it out front if it
is just going to be redirect behind her lot.
Appeal # 32-96 Craig M. and Peggy Demski, S67 W21153 Tans Drive,
Muskego, WI, 53150. The petitioner is requesting under the
direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, two (2)
variances: 1. Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance: Sections 5.02 (3)
Building Location: Offsets, said regulation restricts the offset
of any structure 40 feet from the eastern property line.
Petitioner seeks a 20 foot offset variance to construct an
accessory structure 20 feet from the eastern property line. 2.
Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 4.05 (1) A. Accessory Uses
and Structures: General, said regulation restricts the total
floor area of all outbuildings combined to 1% of the lot area
(1,665 S.F.). Petitioner seeks a 831 S.F. variance to reconstruct
and modify an accessory structure which would yield 2,496 S.F. of
total floor area of all outbuildings combined.
Mr. Trejo explained the RCE zoning. 120,000 S.F. Country Estate
District, and stated the property is a conforming lot. Currently,
there are a total of 2,368 square feet of total outbuildings, with
only 1,165 square feet allowed. This property received a variance
in 1992 for an outbuilding to permit the excess size. Mr. Schepp
administered an oath.
Mr. Demski stated the Plan Commission approved the 32' x 32'
building subject to a variance for 831 additional square feet.
The additional square footage would accommodated additional needed
storage and would not adversely affect the character of the
neighborhood. Mr. Demski stated that the hardship for the 20 foot
offset is so he could utilize his yard better. The current garage
needs to be moved to accommodate the pipes for the new mound
system. He intends to build a 3 car garage.
Appeal # 33-96 Shirley R. Strehlow, W203 S11064 Denoon Point Road
Muskego, WI, 53150. The petitioner is requesting under the
direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, two (2)
variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (1)
Building Location: Setbacks, said regulation restricts the
setback of any structure 55 feet from the center line of the
western road. Petitioner seeks a 26.5 foot setback variance to
construct a detached garage 28.5 feet from the center line of the
western road. 2. Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance: Sections 5.02 (1)
Building Location: Setbacks, said regulation restricts the
setback of any structure 55 feet from the center line of the
northern road. Petitioner seeks a 18.5 foot setback variance to
construct a detached garage 36.5 feet from the center line of the
northern road.
Mr. Trejo explained the RS-2/OLS zoning. 13,400 S.F. Suburban
Residence District in a Lake Shore Overlay and the character of
the city right-of-way. Mr. Trejo also stated he contacted the
Public Works Department in regards to winter maintenance. Only
the main artery of the road is plowed, the L-shape portion on the
east end is not maintained.
BOA 10/24/96
Page 5
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. and Mrs. 5trehlow.
Mrs. Strehlow explained there is not a road on the north lot line,
there are trees growing there, furthermore, there is no way there
could every be a 60' wide road on the west side of the property,
there are homes to close to the road as it exists. The existing
garage is falling down and is to close to the southern property
line. The new garage will be in conformance in terms of size and
offset.
A five minute recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:45
P.M.
DELIBERATION:
The Board of Appeals had a voice vote to discuss Appeal #33-96
first.
APPEAL #33-96 Mr. Brandt made a motion to approve the appeal as
requested due to the irregular shape of the lot, the non
conforming status of the road and its right-of-way, that the
structure will remain consistent with the surrounding existing
structures due to the 25' right-of-way, and that the proposed
structure will not jeopardize public safety. The new garage will
not be any closer to the road -right of way than any other property
on this street and will bring the location into conformance with
the offset. There is not any other location for this garage due
to the location of the existing dwelling and the irregular shape
of the lot. Mr. Brandt seconded. Upon roll call vote the motion
to approved was unanimous.
APPEAL #27-96 Mr. Herda made a motion to approve the variance
with only a 0.7' offset. The hardship being the safety of passage
to the rear of the lot (due to difference in height elevations),
location of existing legal nonconforming structure. A condition
of approval is that eves and water drains within the owners
property and drainage is not to be allowed to drain into the
property to the east. Said variance would not jeopardize public
safety nor alter the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Schepp
seconded. Upon a roll call vote, the motion to approve passed 4
to 1, Chairman O'Neil voting no.
APPEAL #28-96 Appeal was taken off the agenda.
APPEAL #29-96 Motion to defer was made during the meeting.
APPEAL #30-96 Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve as submitted.
Hardship being the location of the home on the lot, the irregular
shape of the lot, and the safety of the deck due to narrow size
that would be required per code. This structure would be within
the character of the adjacent homes and the overall neighborhood
and would not adversely effect the safety of the public. Mr. Ross
seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote, the motion to approve
was unanimous.
BOA 10/24/96
Page 6
APPEAL #31-96 Mr. Schepp made a motion to deny the appeal as
submitted due to a lack of a hardship. The hardship presented by
the petitioner, saving of the trees, the grading of the lot, and
the perceived consent of the Public Works Director, did not
substantiate a valid hardship. The Public Works Director has no
authorative power in granting variances to the ordinance and
avoiding the elimination of trees and regrading of the lot only
represent a financial burden. Mr. Herda seconded the motion.
Upon roll call vote, the motion to deny was approved unanimously.
APPEAL #34-96 Mr. Schepp made a motion to deny the appeal as
submitted due to a lack of a hardship. The hardship presented by
the petitioner, the drainage being routed to the front of the lot
and then transferred back to the rear of the lot did not
substantiate a valid hardship. Said ordinance was in effect when
the subdivision was under review and approved and the developer
made no effort to exempt the lot from said regulations. Mr. Herda
seconded. Upon roll call vote, motion to deny passed unanimously.
APPEAL #32-96 Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve the request for
excess square footage but to deny appeal #1, the offset request.
The denial to appeal #1 was due to lack of a reasonable hardship,
stating there was sufficient room to move the structure closer to
the existing drive. The hardship for the approval of the excess
square footage is due to a lack of storage, Plan commission
approval, and that the structure would be in conformance with
similar outbuildings permitted along Tans Drive. Mr. Shepp
amended his motion to include 831 square foot to include the
storage shed and a condition to be placed that the current garage
be raze within 90 days of final inspection on the new 3 car
garage. Mr. Brandt seconded. Upon roll call vote, motion passed
4 to 1, Mr. Herda voting no.
Miscellaneous Business None
Adjournment: Mr. Schepp made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Brandt
seconded. With no further business to come before this board, the
meeting was adjourned at 11.00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Schr eder
Recording Secretary
AGENDA
CITY OF MUSKEGO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 62.23
(7) (e) 6, that a Public Hearing will be held in the Wisconsin
Room at the Muskego City Hall, W182 58200 Racine Avenue, at 7:00
P.M., Thursday, October 24, 1996, 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 26, 1996 MEETING
5. OLD BUSINESS
Appeal # 27-96
Dennis G. Cindric
S70 W19099 Wentland 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: Sections 5.02 (3)
Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation restricts
the offset of any structure 4.3 feet from the eastern
property line. Petitioner seeks a zero (0) foot offset
variance to build a detached garage on the eastern
property line.
Zoned: RS--3/OED, 11,250 S.F. Suburban Residence
District in and Existing Development.
Signing of decision letters from the September 26, 1996
meeting.
6. NEW BUSINESS
Appeal # 28-96
Donald M. Peil
W194 57057 Hillendale Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks two (2) variances:
BOA 10/24/96
Page 2
1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3)
Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation restricts
the offset of any structure 15 feet from the northern
property line. Petitioner seeks a nine (9) foot offset
variance to permit an accessory structure six (6) feet
from the northern property line.
2. Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance: Sections 5.03 (1)
Height: Maximum Height Restricted. Said regulation
restricts the height of any accessory structure to 15
feet. Petitioner seeks a two (2) foot height variance
to permit an accessory structure with a 17 foot height.
Zoned: RS-2, 20,000 S.F. Suburban Residence District.
Appeal # 29-96
James and Shirley Bartsch
S73 W16453 Vine Street
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks two (2) variances:
1. Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance: Sections 5.02 (1)
Building Location: Setbacks. Said regulation restricts
the setback of any structure 32 feet from the road
right-of-way. Petitioner seeks a 16 foot setback
variance to construct an attached garage 16 feet from
the road right-of-way.
2. Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance: Sections 5.02 (3)
Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation restricts
the offset of any structure 13.4 feet from the eastern
property line. Petitioner seeks a 7.4 foot offset
variance to construct an attached garage six (6) feet
from the eastern property line.
Zoned: RS-2, 20,000 S.F. Suburban Residence District.
Appeal # 30-96
Robert J. Winiarski
W180 S6865 Muskego Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance:
1. Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance: Sections 9.04 (7) E.1
OLS Lake Shore District: Lake Shore Offset. Said
regulation restricts the offset of any structure 50 feet
from the shore line. Petitioner seeks a 3 foot offset
variance to permit an existing attached deck to stay 47
feet from the shore of Little Muskego Lake
BOA 10/24/96
Page 3
Zoned: RS-3/OLS, 10,000 S.F. Suburban Residence
District in a Lake Shore Overlay.
Appeal # 31-96
David and Mary Stawski
W198 S6776 Adrian Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance:
1. Chapter 16--Plumbing Code: Sections 16.20 Discharge
of Clear Water Sump Pumps. Said regulation requires all
sump pumps installed for the purpose of discharging
clear water from foundation drains and ground
infiltration to connect to the City storm sewer via
underground drain pipe. Petitioner seeks not to install
drain pipe and connect to storm sewer.
Zoned: RS-1, 30,000 S.F. Suburban Residence District.
Appeal # 32-96
Craig M. and Peggy Demski
S67 W21153 Tans Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks two (2) variances:
1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3)
Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation restricts
the offset of any structure 40 feet from the eastern
property line. Petitioner seeks a 20 foot offset
variance to construct an accessory structure 20 feet
from the eastern property line.
2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 4.05 (1) A.
Accessory Uses and Structures: General. Said
regulation restricts the total floor area of all
outbuildings combined to 1% of the lot area (1,665
S.F.). Petitioner seeks a 831 S.F. variance to
reconstruct and modify an accessory structure which
would yield 2,496 S.F. of total floor area of all
outbuildings combined.
Zoned: RCE, 120,000 S.F. Country Estate District.
Appeal # 33-96
Shirley R. Strehlow
W203 S11064 Denoon Point Road
Muskego, WI 53150
BOA 10/24/96
Page 4
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks two (2) variances:
1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (1)
Building Location: Setbacks. Said regulation restricts
the setback of any structure 55 feet from the center
line of the western road. Petitioner seeks a 26.5 foot
setback variance to construct a detached garage 28.5
feet from the center line of the western road.
2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (1)
Building Location: Setbacks. Said regulation restricts
the setback of any structure 55 feet from the center
line of the northern road. Petitioner seeks a 18.5 foot
setback variance to construct a detached garage 36.5
feet from the center line of the northern road.
Zoned: RS-2/OLS, 13,400 S.F. Suburban Residence
District in a Lake Shore Overlay.
Appeal # 34-96
Peter J. Dargiewicz
W124 S7193 Skylark Lane
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance;
1. Chapter 16--PlumbingCode: Sections 16.20 Discharge
of Clear Water Sump Pumps. Said regulation requires all
sump pumps installed for the purpose of discharging
clear water from foundation drains and ground
infiltration to connect to the City storm sewer via
underground drain pipe. Petitioner seeks not to install
drain pipe and connect to storm sewer.
Zoned: RS-2, 20,000 S.F. Suburban Residence District.
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.
BOA 10/24/96
Page 5
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 11th day of October, 1996
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. Fax 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.
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appealing Administrative Decision
Applicants Name �yl )� 4J6 M19ALI sal
Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable):
owner lessee other
Subject Property Address ,�
Telephone �a 9 - ,-Jy ��J( qB 1 `g boo
Parcel Zoning: —
Fee: $125.00
Tax Key # / -? 1, 0,-, I I IF Q
Appeal Administrative decision regarding:
IJ l.`i.?`E—J I �7V %Z1n ` Cam? Ede Vilq
Code enforcers name:
Reason decision regarding section ��lL/ _ is incorrect
or improperly interpreted:
Names & last known addresses of the last fee owners of record of
all land within 100 feet of any part of the proposed building or
premises. (Exclusion of any property owner is sufficient grounds
for denial or reversal of decision.) This page may be copied if
additional spaces are required.
CITY OF MUSKEGO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITIES
W189 S8235 Mercury Drive, Muskego, WI 53150 - Phone 679-4128
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Carlos Trejo
FROM: John LoughneyJ
DATE: October 23, 1996
RE: Sump Pump Variance Requests
Ilpl p� 2319A6 U�
uu
�SK�G�O-PLANNING
At the October 24th Board of Appeals meeting you will be
considering the requests of two property owners requesting a sump
pump variance. It has been the policy of the City to not allow
variances of this type in the past, but no one has ever pursued
their request to the Board of Appeals.
One property owner, Mr. Stawski, stated that he has never had water
in his sump crock. This may be the case, but the true test would
be in spring when we have the greatest amount of runoff and the
ground may still be frozen. Mr. Stawski also stated that he will
lose mature trees should the variance not be approved. I do not
feel the trees that would be affected are mature, since their trunk
diamater is less than 311. Mr. Stawski further stated that the lot
next to his property could not be built on. This is, in fact,
a buildable lot. In addition, Mr. Stawski's lot has extreme pitch
to the north. I would recommend denial of Mr. Stawski's request
for a variance.
The other property owner, Peter Dargiewicz is requesting approval
to run his sump discharge to a creek that runs across his property
behind his house instead of connecting to the sump main at the
front of the lot. I feel this is a reasonable request due to the
fact that if he connects to the front the water eventually drains
through the creek at the rear of his house anyway. I would
recommend approval of Mr. Dargiewicz's request for a variance.
I would caution you to look at requests for sump pump variances
individually. Extreme care should be taken when approving these
type of requests and careful consideration given to the possible
problems that may surface once the approval is given.
MEM034/JZ
CITY OF
-MUSKEGO
Mr. & Mrs. David Stawski
10010 W. Edgerton Avenue
Hales Corners, WI 53130
Re:
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Stawski:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITIES
John Loughney, Public Works Superintendent
(414) 679-4148
Scott Moskowski, Utilities Superintendent
(414) 679-4149
October 3, 1996
---A!r
W198 56776 Adrian Drive
In response to your letter of September 30, 1996, please be advised
that although I cannot allow the variance you are requesting, you
may appeal my decision to the Board of Appeals.
I have enclosed a form which you will need to complete and submit
to Carlos Trejo, the Assistant Planning/Zoning Administrator. The
next meeting of the Board of Appeals is scheduled for Thursday,
October 24, 1996. The deadline for submittals for this meeting is
Wednesday, October 9, 1996. Please contact Mr. Trejo at 679-5674
Monday thru Friday from 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. before October 9th to
insure that your request is reviewed at the October meeting.
If you have any further questions, I would suggest you contact Mr.
Trejo.
Sincerel
i
John Loughney
l Public Works
Superintendent
jz
c: C. Trejo,
i"
W189 S8235 Mercury Drive • Box 903 0 Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 • Fax (414) 679-4151
September 30, 1996
Mr. John Loughney
Public Works Superintendent
PO Box 903
Muskego, WI 53150-0903
RE; New Home Construction at W 198 S6776 Adrian Drive, Muskego, W1 53130
Mr. Loughney,
Please accept this letter as our written request for you to grant a variance from the City of
Muskego's ordinance requiring that the discharge from a ground or clear water sump pump be
discharged into a gravity fed underground pipe which connects into the city's storm sewer.
We believe that on our property it is not necessary and in fact may be detrimental to require
the installation of the underground drainage system.
Our request for a variance is based on the following information:
1. Since the date of the sump crock's installation (approx. June 3`d) NOT ONE DROP of
water has entered into the sump pump crock due to the elevated house construction and
the gravel/sand soil conditions of the property.
2. The property in question is a 5A acre hilly and wooded lot which will eliminate the
possibility of any problems caused by surface discharge.
3. The area immediately around the proposed surface discharge will be fully landscaped
thereby absorbing all of the minimal discharge that may occur.
4. If any surface drainage would occur, it would be into a heavily wooded area.
5. No home could be constructed within 200 feet of the proposed sump pump's surface
discharge.
6. If an underground drain pipe is required, it will be necessary to destroy nine mature trees
on the property. To this point, we have been successful in saving these trees during the
entire construction process.
We respectfully request that you grant our variance.
Sincerely,
David Stawski I0010 W. Edgerton Ave. (D) 481-9900
Mary Stawski Hales Corners, WI 53130 (E) 529-4021