Zoning Board of Appeals 31-1997CITY OF
MUSKEGG
March 5, 1998
Mr. Michael Hall
S79 W 16061 Bay Lane Place
Muskego, WI 53150
RE: Board of Appeals
Dear Mr. Hall:
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
Matthew G. Sadowski, AICP
Director of Planning
(414) 679-4136
The Board wishes to advise that your appeal from Chapter 17, Section 4.06 A. l and Section 4.06 A.2 have
been deferred until such time you obtain a resolution from FEMA.
Should you have any questions, please contact Carlos Trejo at 679-5674.
Sincerely,
Susan Schroeder
Recording Secretary
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue • Box 903 a Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 • Fax (414) 679-5614
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 Muskego Room, West at the Muskego City Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue, at 7:00 P.M., Thursday,
February 26. 1998, 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 OCTOBER 23, 1997, AND THE DECEMBER 11, 1997,
MEETINGS.
5. OLD BUSINESS
Signing of decision letters for September. October and December meetings.
Amended Appeal # 31-97
Michael and Amy Hall
S79 W 16061 Bay Lane Place
Muskego. WI 53150
Tax Key No. 2217.989
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions. Petitioner seeks the
following three (3) variances:
1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.04 (7) E OLS Lake Shore District, Lake Shore Offset. No
structure shall be erected. structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it
is located. Petitioner seeks a 41 foot variance to place an accessory building 9 feet from the north property
line. (zoning requirement is 50 feet)
2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A.I. Legal Nonconformity: No structure shall be
expanded or enlarged. except within conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located.
Petitioner seeks to expand a second level over a legal nonconforming structure in a Iloodplain and offset area.
3. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A.2. Legal Nonconformity. Said regulation restricts
expansion or enlargement of a nonconforming structure to no more than 50% of its current fair market value.
Petitioner seeks to repair, alter. and expand said structure over 50% of its current fair market value.
4. 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 52 square foot variance to construct a 660
square foot accessory building. (zoning requirement is 608 sT)
Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay
BOA 12/11/97
Page 2
6. NEW BUSINESS
None
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
Terry O'Neil, Chairman
Dated this 13th day of February, 1998
_ 1 CITY OF
MUSKEGO
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
Matthew G. Sadowski, AICP
Director of Planning
(414) 679-4136
A REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT S79 W16061 BAY
LANE PLACE. ALL AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN WO FEET HAVE BEEN SENT A NOTICE
OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DATE MAILED: d
SIGNED: / aH& S/ . G�
WITNESSED:
CC: ALDERMAN SANDERS
MSKC 2217 987
MAXINE LAWDANSKI
2530 W HALSEY
MILWAUKEE WI 53221
S8200-
)3
go Wl 53150-0903
MSKC 2217 908
HELEN J ANDERSEN
S79 Wi6087 HAY LANE PL
MUSKEGO WI 53150
MSKC 2217 989
MICHAEL R HALL
S79 W16061 DAY LANE
MUSKEGO WI :;3150
Steven Robert Sharpe, AIA
139-A North Main Street
Oconomowoc, WI 53066
MSKC 2217 790
RICHARD h KATHLEEN RABOINE
57948
MUSKEGO WI DA5315() �'E
MSKC 2217 995
ANDREW h CELESTE SCHKERYANTZ
mu79 sKEGOgWI Sp53150DY DREACH D
MSKC 2217 998 002
CLARENCE & C HERDA
MUSKEGOO41 NDY WI SA53150EACH
fe
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue • Box 903 • Muskego, Wisconsin 53150.,0903 Pax (414) 679-5614
CITY OF
MUSKEGO
DECEMBER 12, 1997
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Hall
S79 W16061 Bay Lane Place
Muskego, WY 53150
RE: Appeal #31-97
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hall:
DEPARTMENT OF CITY'PLANNING
Matthew G. Sadowski, AICP
Director of Planning
(414) 679-4136
The Board of Appeals wishes to advise your appeal from Section
6.3(1) Flood fringe was deferred.
Your appeal from Section 5.02(3)B Building Location, setbacks, was
deferred.
And your appeal from Section 5.03(3)A Building Location, offsets,
was deferred.
Should you have any questions, please contact Carlos Trejo at
679-5674.
Sincerely, n
Susan J. Schroeder
Recording Secretary
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue 41 Box 903 • Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 • Fax (414) 679-5614
Mr. Schlotke stated that the addition location is in the only
area possible to utilize the current interior pattern of the
residence. The expansion has been placed as far from the front
of the home as possible.
Appeal #30-97 Gary Witkowiak, 5030 West Cleveland Avenue,
Milwaukee, WI 53219 Property located at: S73 W17230 Lake
Drive,Muskego, WI 53150, Tax Key No. 2193.038. Under the
direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, petitioner
seeks to appeal an administrative decision requiring the removal
of two accessory buildings on a residential lot without a
primary residence by a set date.
An oath was administered to Gary Witkowiak by Mr. Brandt.
Mr. Witkowiak stated he is in the process of purchasing this
property from Gary Gaspervich, and he would like to have the
ability to use the garage and boat house as storage while
building a new residence. He intends to commence building in
mid January and would like to utilize the construction
dumpster on the site to raze the boat house and the garage.
Mr. Trejo stated that this appeal is an administrative
decision that originally started with a letter sent to Mr.
Gaspervich over a violation to the Zoning Ordinance. The
Gaspervichs were advised, prior to applying for a razing
permit, that when a residence is razed, the accessory structures
to that residence must be removed also. The Gapervichs
applied for a razing permit indicating the removal of the three
structures on the lot. Only the residence was removed, and
further work was stopped. A letter was sent to the
Gaspervichs giving them until November 21, 19997, to remove
the remaining structures. The Gaspervichs applied for an
appeal to the letter in hopes of leaving the two accessory
structures on the lot. The garage is close to the lot line and
street, and the boat house is too close to the lot line and in
disrepair. Staff is concerned over the boat house, because it
resembles a small cottage with a fireplace, and what use it
could possibly be since it is so far away from where
construction is to be. Allowing the garage to remain without a
primary residence would be setting a precedence for future
building.
Mr. Witkowiak, stated he understood that he was buying into a
lot with the referenced violation. He is appealing the time
line in hopes of being able to utilize the buildngs during
construction of his new residence.
Appeal # 31-97 Michael and Amy Hall, S79 W16061 Bay Lane Place
Muskego, WI 53150, Tax Key No. 2217.989. Under the direction
of Chapter 14, Section 7.3 (2) (a) Appeals to the Board and
Chapter 17, Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, both of the
Municipal Code, petitioner seeks three (3) variances: 1.
Chapter 14-Flood lain Zoning Ordinance: Section 6.3 (1)
Mr. Schneiker returned to his seat.
DELIBERATIONS:
Appeal #30-97
Mr. Brandt made a motion to approve the appeal as submitted.
Mr. Ross seconded. The Board discussed that Mr. Witkowiak was
well aware that the parcel was in violation with the Zoning
Code. The motion was amended to include that the boat house be
razed prior to the footing inspection for the new home and the
garage be razed prior to final inspection. Upon roll call vote,
the motion carried unanimously.
Appeal #32-97
Mr. Schneiker made a motion to approve appeal as submitted,
hardship cited being the pre-existing location of house on the
lot, the nonconformity of the parcel in the zoning district,
that the current expansion is further than the front of the
house and would not have a public safety impact on Crowbar Road,
and that the traffic generation on Crowbar Road is minimal and
would not be adversely affected by said expansion. Mr. Brant
seconded, upon roll call vote, motion carried unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: Chairman O'Neil requested the
Common Council revisit the issue of 30' height restriction on
new residential construction and requested an explanation of the
Fire Department's concerns for 30' height restrictions.,
ADJOURN: Mr. Ross made a motion to adjourn, Mr. Schepp
seconded. With no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. chroeder
Recording Secretary
CITY OF M[TSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
Application for Variance
Applicants Name 4"Y f�RCL
Subject Property Address: S`7 % z_A-nfe_ l-Ace,
Telephone 4,,2)- 9//� _
Property Zoning
Petitioner's
owner
Key # MSkI6 -2a/7 9,99
relationship to property (circle applicable):
Fees: $195.00
lessee other
Date inspector denied permit:
Requesting variance to Section
To allow: >eS-2VeT wr qt �lf ! r�C, ��e.tl =yEE jy,,
— ter, , ,
1 CA,Ce S J Q uCr� On! v / vN ar=
A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section
would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship
because:
A..b LVP_ G..o✓[al f A&v ,A r w l i P zz&.
�Z77k CVA&,� AetT_
The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public
interest and will be in accord with the spirit of the code because:
/,-- lam/ L #14 vle /`�/�11i�`► 4 / s,�✓ TIC �rvlf/Ren /r7c�
CJ*C,4V,4,7-W Ors p ,"
NFLA O P;�r WILL Mf A9VC NO mA, 72ye V.44 V � ✓�
7 � eyS ,- e 7� 1/�Pi v c DF �i►/��te eA
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety
or jeopardize public welfare because:
(��f� ��- a?�.yi�✓%L Fiv✓��GanM�.,�,¢� __-��i9-ram
t ih�7AC p W aQ L.v o T7/Q �iv7/
N
ti
N
b
C
CA
717,
rn
4
O
\_
GO
Z
z�BO
370.0
pn
orn
I
CREEK_
240- (D)
m
r
G
V
V
C
�.
ILI
o
57.58
i
43!'�' 1
L-- O
O
r
FC�
v
I
/ r %
t _
V m
0
}LV.
m
a
O
I�I
I
I�
I�
I
�
ro
0
I ^
1 ) I�
I
'd
G
233.000)
x
N~
0
r?z77"
~
�
H
n
x
�
a
H
ro
H
H
0
x
mm�'hw0°or_a
In
eq mV 0 w :1 1- m w
P.rt O m rt ct g x rt
rt
�a
p I..,. x cD P. I-,. a
p..'
rt G .. p
�+
F+• 0 1�-� 11
..
Ch
p a rt P. - "
o
Wro E cD �� m c)� ct
rn
w: p 0 W O
o En
Q CD rt
o °•t- n w�
r
ft CD
rt
�
co
(
+�
p a"p z
rt rt � LQ 0
CD
{D
N
w
+�
I
O co cn w
m p (D rt p w
ro
w
�31 w " tN rt w 1-4 p.0
(D !- (D w 0•, O
d
(D
Ito
m O O. p 0
0"::srnCD wr
i`
CD IhI—Ct 0 CP
N
A
a
a rt rt cD O
P'
i
m [n (CD ct pi m P. rt
N �' O
0
�O
S
O p P.
ct rt
I
r
r,ctCD a O o
ct
p
p O t l� Fi, O
�r, ur 0 co o CD 00
y,
N ct � (D (a °ctay
m
(D CD 0 �-- j ul
ICL
P)
CO z
x
(n
G
co 0 Ffi w (D - w
p
C
`°F1
rt 0' r►,0�0 a�v
V
'7 (D
romp No
'C
(t wrt ((DD
0
rt ( n rt x O cD ti C3]
m
� O rt P,
mo
o
rt
FD N) ppM�wrt
Amrt1-h
w
4� rt m ro ow Mr, M rn
O
w rt (D rt rt 0 F- F...
r) ::I(D �3- p O F-• rt
� tj 1�
oCDrtK�
°0
0 0 rt 0 0 CD m 0
Ffi (D O (D (D (D " - Fb
ro
0
ftl
CA
C
c�
t
N
rn
r
z
rn<
o�
M
=
p
rn
M
CP
�
sl
lck
o
a
N
oo
ti
rn
CREEK
240.0'
� > 2 19 cn
-�
y -n > b.
rl d
�rn ciU
5i.58 \
\ 2,..2b rn
uj
1 � �
233.0'
> X
r lbn
M
r
F
Ul
LINE,OF E;
GAMBREL
R0O0S TCC
—_�_IW OF :BMW!
46 AREA
OF PROr4M1
WEST SIPE BUILDING PROFILE
r-• r
LINE OF EXISM
GAMBREL AND
ROOFS TO BE F
SOUTH SIDE BUILDING PROFILE
SI Tf
EXISM
EX I STI h
EXISTIN
EXISTIN
TOTAL
PROPO`_
PROPO_
00 A Am� �om E i� 1!.f 11 9 r 2 s r — -- — ..
SCALE, 1/8" = 1'-0"
ATTIC,
BEDROOM
ATTIC
BATH I BEDROOM I BEDROOM
5TUDY/DEN
BEDROOM
PROP05ED 2nd FLOOR ADDITION '7q& SF.
SCOPE OF WORK 15 TO COMPLETELY RAZE THE
EXISTING 2nd FLOOR AND ROOF STRIUCTURE TO ALLOW
FOR THE ADDITION OF THE PROPOSED 2nd FLOOR
CONSTRUG TI ON
a0'-4-
m 5UILDIN6, FOOTPRINT
OF
EXISTING RESIDENCE
q88 SF
14l-O*
SCHEMATIC CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLANS
SCALE: I/H
__.-_-:3M�+ -. .�__. _ _ _--- -�.n4r...-...-.=r:-r-��.s�•�cr+v'P�.—�'..,.s.R-:rr_�--'w•d..-.'-•�--n't.....•.......,._......ti..�
architect
October, 17 1997
Mr. Matt Sadowski
Zoning & Planning Specialist
City of Muskego
W182 S8200 Racine Ave.
Muskego, Wi. 53150-0903
Re: Michael Hall Residence
S79 W16061 Bay Lane Place
Dear Matt:
Thank you for our recent phone discussion on the
possibilities of remodeling the existing Hall residence as
referenced above.
I have prepared a schematic plan to introduce the
remodeling concepts the Halls wish to persue.
We realize that we require variances as presented on
the plans site development Data, and request that you initiate
the proper notifications for a public hearing before the board
of appeals at your December 11, 1997 meeting date.
Enclosed please find eleven (11) copies of the proposed
addition schematic with the site plan, the $195.00 required
fee, and the completed application for process.
If you have any questions or concerns please call one
at your convenience.
Sin ely,
Ste- a Sharpe
Ar itect
Encl.
cc: Michael Hall
STEVEN ROBERT SHARPE A.I.A.
139-A NORTH MAIN STREET, OCONOMOWOC, WI 53066
1414-569-9200
44 - U N O ro O O 4-4
O v U U 4-+ U O
S-- W r�
0�4 O 0 O 4J 0 N
•--1 O .(,- .c:: O C U
,- j U 4J J-) Q) a--%
44 4J }
�' ro � a
U) O p
xNAN
%.D
4-1 3 °)r+
.c�OaO rr�
�
o
+s 4-4 a-)
a) 4 t O 4-) -S4
k4D
ON
O o (�n (L) O O
.iz .NOO•-1+-
W U O r- E U V +�
O
Z
U) m � O v
o��bU)w
CN
a
O 4-4 U) -) dt
l4
ztd4_ NN4a O
�4OD oz
co�
Lr) N W o .t_, , .54 5.
-,:
H rl
Q) O
O O A 4-4
O
,0 a O
O
o O O O4-)•1
'?
O +- :::; U
CT
H U) On fU 4-) L4 4)cn
co
U?
U O O 4
4-1 -1o4-4C�
4�4ro
O
4- O 0 CD
O a.r4
Qi
rn y rd n N
>'+ ro - --1 N }-I ro
�4-) U O >1
W 0 - � �
z
p 0 ,� 4 rA —i
'v
,�
Q) +a O O Q)
4 z �
Q) (o n -A
� N U
Gq
`� 4 (n O U
a
•�
U rn� 3
4 0) 4-) rz:
c fo f.,
O
V)
H'� O Cx7 U CO ,'3: A
O
H
a
N
(71
U
�
z
w
C\j
0
0
H
U
Q
00
U'
)4
04
(0100'000 ��
LwI
Z�l
w!
c�
z
�
Q
O
I15
(n
r--
I
Z
The property on which we reside at S79 W 16061 Bay Lane Place war formerly an
ice house, located on the other side of Big Muskego Lake. It was moved to its current
position as a summer cottage. in the late fifties/early sixties a garage was added to the
east end of the building. Shortly thereafter indoor plumbing was added in the form of a
bathroom at the south east side of the building. A third addition was added on to the
bathroom forming a single -story addition along the side of the building. These additions
were added with foundations.
At some stage of all this work, a small furnace was added in the living room of the
property. I can only surmise what subsequently happened. The furnace required hooking
up to a chimney, which was sixteen feet across the living -room. To accommodate an
exhaust pipe, four inch notches were cut into the joists in the living -room, leaving two
inches to support the upstairs. Subsequently large beams were installed to add to the
support, however they were pinned with 3/4 inch dowel, and didn't actually touch the
joists, thus providing no support.
Additionally during the past thirty years, the roof covering the south addition of
the house leaked. Pacing the prevailing winds, and almost flat, this in itself is no surprise,
however the leaking did some damage to the joists covering that part of the house. These
were pointed out to City of Muskego representatives in October of 1995 when I took
ownership of the property. At the time, I temporarily bridged the notches in the
living -room joists to avoid further damage, however, this requires a long-term solution.
The garage was turned into a bedroom at some stage of the last thirty years, and
during most of those thirty years the property was a rental property. Unfortunately as a
rental property the property suffered some deterioration, and thus the bulb of the value of
the property was taken off the "improvements" and placed on the land, bringing the value
of the "improvements" on the tax bill to $I6,700. We have improved the interior of the
property considerably since purchasing it, and the improvements are, I'm sure, worth
considerably more than this, however the amount is moot, as we are restricted to
improvements totally no more than 50% of the current value, due to the non -conforming
nature of the house, and this would be impossible to accomplish.
When I moved into the property, I was a single father with three young girls.
Obviously my own short-sighted view was that a small house with three bedrooms and
one bathroom was adequate for my situation. Since then I have become a married father,
and one of the daughters has become a teenager. Shared bedrooms? One bathroom?
However, we both love the outlook of the property, the location, and the seclusion. It
would be a difficult place to duplicate. We have been looking at options to expand the
property. Additionally, the lack of a basement and garage provides little storage space,
and the stuff that we have stored outside leaves the place looking like a gypsy
encampment. The house was built in three parts, and it looks very like it was built in three
totally unrelated parts.
Our impediments to adding on are that the land surrounding the house is below the
100-year flood plain level, though the level of the house is above flood -plain. Due to the
location of the channel, most of the land is within fifty feet of Lakeshore.
Our desired solution would be to (a) build a garage on the portion of the land that
is mostly above flood -plain and also more than fifty feet from lakeshore and channel, at the
rear northwest corner of the property. This would be closer than twenty-five feet from the
roadway, however. It would be desirable to have a larger than average garage to avoid
having to build an additional shed and to compensate for other storage space, such as a
basement, which our house lacks_
For the house, we are proposing that the current upstairs part of the property be
taken off; the notched -out joists, and the water -damaged joists, replaced, and a new top
put on. The new top would cover both the original part of the house, plus the southern
addition, plus a similar upstairs, slightly smaller, would cover the bedroom addition that
was converted from a garage. This approach would unify the three separate parts of the
house, giving the appearance of a single structure, rather than a hodgepodge of add-ons.
It would also increase the upstairs space, allowing for four bedrooms and a bathroom
upstairs.
The estimated cost of these improvements is S60470,000. We believe that it
would follow the intent of the law regarding building within fifty feet of lakeshore, as it
would not require any additional excavation. It would add aesthetically to the area, a
point well -supported by our neighbors. The Conclusion would be a property that makes
the best use of the lot, with minimal impact on the eco-system.
Timetable: We would hope to be able to build the garage in March, or as soon as
the ground is soft enough to dig a foundation. We would put up a barrier to minimize
run-off into an adjacent ditch that empties into the channel, then build the garage, then use
said garage as storage for some of the house furniture when we subsequently make the
changes to the house in April through June. We would also hope, simultaneously, to
perform some minor upkeep on a six-foot section of the house foundation that has water
damage.
The house would be done in three phases. First of all, stripping the inside of the
upstairs part of the house to make it ready to disassemble. Secondly, in May, when the
interior is less subject to frost damage, removing the top of the house and the roof over
the south addition and the east addition. The damaged joists would be replaced at this
stage. Thirdly a new upstairs would be built, and interior work completed. A new furnace
and heat vents would be installed prior to interior finishing, taking advantage of the
stripped nature of the house to provide greater equilibrium in the heat distribution in the
house, installing cold air returns in the west end of the house where currently there are
none.
The intent of the owners is protect the environment in this endeavor. We have
already, with the necessary permits, installed rip -rap along both the Lakeshore and the
channel shore to minimize erosion. Additionally, we have planted wildflowers along
portions of the channel to maximize the area available to frogs, song -birds, etc. The
attraction of the property is its natural wonder, and we intend to do everything possible to
maintain this resource.
Michael Hall
S79 W16061 Bay Lane Place
Muskego, WI 53150
Tel. 414 422 9114
April 17, 1996
Carlos Trejo
Planning Department
Muskego City Hall
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue
Muskego, WI 53150
Dear Carlos:
i
q
Several months ago you were very helpful me in directing me to
what steps I should take to ascertain what, if anything, I can do
to expand the house that I live in. I live in a house a the end
of Bay Lane Place. As you suggested I went ahead and got a
flood -plain survey completed. Two copies are enclosed. I have
two suggestions as to how I would like to proceed:
1. Build an 18 x 28 addition to the west end of the building.
This would be approximately 48 feet from the channel at the north
end, and approximately 50 feet from the channel at the south end.
My understanding is that to do this I would need a variance to
build within 50 feet of a channel, also DNR fill permit to fill
up to 774.1' within 15 feet of the addition where it currently
varies between 773.5 and 773.95, and up to 775.1' within 8 feet
of the addition. The west end of the addition would be
approximately 17 feet from my west boundary, allowing sufficient
space for drainage. It is my understanding that the DNR is
accepting applications for shoreline work on the currently
lowered Bass Bay through middle of May(?) The floor level of the
proposed addition would be at approxiamtely 776.65, approximately
1.5 feet above the floor level of the existing structure, which,
though above flood -plain is less than the requisite two feet
above flood plain. Some structural work would have to be done
to the existing structure to allow it to support an adjacent
addition but this is minimal and would fall within the 50%
allowance.
2. Alternatively. Build a 15 x 22 addition south of the current
structure at the west end, (see penciled -in addition on top
copy). Though this would put the proposed addition 15 feet
closer to the channel, I'm suggesting it as it would be a smaller
addition, would not block my neighbor's view to the north of me,
would allow more area for drainage between my structure and that
of my neighbor to the west, would allow the foundation of the
current structure to be reinforced along the south side without
actually affecting the 50% allowance as the foundation would be
part of the new addition, would allow me to raise the floor level
of part of the existing structure therefore to 776.1--two feet
above flood plain level. Though the variance required here would
be greater, I'm suggesting it mainly as I believe it would have a
more minimal environmental impact both on long-term drainage and
on my neighbors. This proposal would require that I get
permission to join the upstairs of the addition to the current
structure which would probably come closer to using up all of the
50% allowance if this is considered as affecting the current
structure.
I hope this makes sense. As you already know, I'm not really up
on a lot of this stuff, so I'm relying heavily on your
professionalism and creativity! If you need to reach me during
work hours my direct line at work is 246-7612.
As always, thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
7
Michael Hall
l'�� _....-..�.. II
MAY 1996 I
MUSKEGO PLANNING
S79 W16061 Say Lane Place
Muskego, WI 53150
Tel, 414 422 9114
Sus. 414 246 7612
Carlos Trejo
City of Muskego Planning Department
Muskego, Wl 53150
Dear Carlos
With reference to an informai proposal I sent to you a few weeks ago, I just wanted to add
something: At your suggestion I am having the engineering company forward me a copy of the
flood plain delineated, though I'm guessing that apart from the house and the northwest corner it
is mostly under flood -plain. What I am wondering is the following: If I were to jack up the current
structure to where it was in excess of two feet above flood plain, and if I were separately to seek
a DNR permit to put fill around the structure to a level one foot above flood plain to a distance of
8 feet and at flood plain to a distance of 15 feet, would this in effect increase the likelihood of
getting an approval on putting an addition on the house?
Look forward to hearing from you
Sincerely,
Michael R. Hall
02/06/1997 11:27 4142467660 CR/T HIGH-TECH PAGE 02
S79 W16061 Bay lane Place
Muskego, WI 53150
414-422-9114
414-246-7612-b usi nes s
Don Simon
City of Muskego
Dear Mr. Simon:
Last October I decided to embark on a project to change a portion of the front
part of my house. As I'm sure your files will reflect, the front part of my house Is
an addition that was put on about thirty years ago on what was originally a
concrete patio that was built on a foundation about two feet deep.
Prior to doing anything to change the front portion of my house, the FIRST thing I
did was to write to you. I have always tried to operate within the bounds and
restrictions of law and at the time I wanted to make sure that there was nothing I
needed to do prior to embarking on this project. Specifically, I was concerned
that there might be some need to put a more substantial foundation under the
"patio" structure, and that there might be some need for structural reinforcement
In the event that I would ever build up over the front part of my house.
Subsequently, Mr. Dykstra called me. He made it clear that I wouldn't need to
put any more foundation under it, but that It would be dIVIc rlt In the future,
regardless, to build above the present structure. It was my understanding from
this conversation and from earlier conversations that I am restricted cost -wise,
(as the house Is non-conflrming) and require prior approval, to change the
STRUCTURE of the house. Based on this information. I decided to limit the
wont being done to basically cosmetic work —also alluded to in the letter. The
cosmetic work included exchanging a wall -covering that had heretofore been
panelling an one wall, and old wooden siding on two ethers, for dry -wall. The
ceiling had previously been panelled in rough cedar. This was also dry -wailed. I
bought a new window for one side as the old leaked like a sieve. As an
afterthought I extended what l had intended to be just a closet to form a
temporary wail closeting off one side of the room from the other, mainly a
temporary measure as my sister is visiting later this year. I did not alter the
structure In anyway.
I am now very confused. Having specifically written back In October to find out
how to stay within the confines of the law, I find out from my electrician that I
have somehow stepped out of my bounds! When DMC Electric originally
mentioned a few weeks back that the inspector had thought there should be a
construction permit, I mentioned to DMC that I had Indeed talked to Mr. Dykstra
02/06/1997 11:27 4142467660 CR/T HIGH-TECH PAGE 03
about this project. I had at first thought that perhaps the inspector thought the
structure to be an entirety new structure's
DMC has just told me that they cannot close the electrical Permit. I would be
very abliged if you could please fill me In on where I went wrong? I had hoped
that by my letter back in October I could have avoided this confusion, but would
like to clarify this as soon as possible. As mentioned before. my intent, as is
probably fairly obvious from my file, has been to proceed in all work on my house
in a legal and co-operative fashion. I'm sure you would agree that it is best to
continue in this vein!
Thank you for your assistance in this.
Sincerety,
V
Michael Hall
•�' '.ti �:. ,',�I .:�„ � fY �J i r.r� !ij
.-Si
ME ILI
Pa m.`Rt 41^!;,A.
t
iIFi