Zoning Board of Appeals 32-1993icily o/ wtaeq!o
Mr. Thomas F. Harr
S65 WI8422 Ruby Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
Dear Mr. Harr:
. �
BUILDING INSP O E ARToMENT
W182 S8200 RACINE AVENUE • BOX 903 - MUSKEGO, FYI 53150-0903 • (414) 679-4110
The Board of Appeals wishes to advise you that your requests
1) A 6' offset variance from Section 17:8.08(3) and 17:9.04(3)
requirements of 10' to allow a detached garage within 4' of
west property line; and
2) A 20' setback variance from Section 17:9.04(7)E.1.
requirement of 50' to allow a detached garage within 30' of a
public water body
has been granted.
Sincerely,
Susan. J. Schroeder
Recording Secretary
61Y o/ ine Ked[denfiaC' JndusfriaC and Recreational Jacib;.J
Tom Harr
October 12, 1993
Page 2
Should you have any further questions regarding these
requirements, please contact me at 670-4110, M-W-F, 8:00 A.M. -
12:00 P.M. and 3:00 P.M. - 4:30 P.M.
Very truly yours,
NZ4e-'
s4i
Chuck Dykstra r.
Director Building inspection
CDD/sjs
CC: Mayor David De Angelis
0/ 1) 11111 let-, (I
CITY OF MUSKEOO BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES HELD ON DECEMBER 2,
1993. Chairman Fohr called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Gerald Fohr, Mr. Lloyd Erno, Mr. Darryl
Rowinski, Mr. Tom Berken, Mr. Robert Vitt, Mr. Terry O'Neil,
Mr. Chuck Dykstra, and Vice -Chairman Mr. Don Pionek.
MINUTES: Mr. Rowinski made the motion to accept the minutes of
October's meeting as presented. Mr. O'Neil seconded, motion
carried.
APPEAL # 32-93 - Mr. Tom Harr, S65 W18422 Ruby Drive, Muskego,
Wisconsin, 53150, appeared requesting two variances:
1). A 6'0" offset variance from Section 17:8.08(3) and
17:9.04(3) requirement of 10'0" to allow a detached garage
within 4'0" of west property line.
2). A 20'0" setback variance from Section 17.9.04(7)E.l.
requirement of 50' to allow a detached garage within 30'0" of a
public water body.
Mr. Chuck Dykstra explained RS3 zoning is the densest
residential zoning in the city. The OLS overlay indicates this
parcel abuts a waterbody. The lots in RS3 are 100' wide, but
the OLS allows 66' wide lots. In this case, the building
permit was issued in error by the Building Department.
Inspector Don Simon had asked Director Chuck Dykstra to review
the site plan, however, it had not been reviewed at the time
the permit was issued. To compound the error, Mr. Harr failed
to call for the required inspections, which would have alerted
the Building Inspection Department that the garage was being
built in the wrong location, too close to the lot line.
Mr. Tom Harr stated he submitted a survey and his building
plans the first week of June, believing the survey correct.
Mr. Harr also admitted being in error not calling for the
inspection, however, he owns an electronics store, he is not a
contractor.
.�' w _ l _l-_ 3 S L built
i l the
.-. 1. e i-f TRr
A`1L V 1Ve11 a5RCl1 11 1•lr. Harr L1111L C.I[4" garage IIJ.li1�c1� rii .
Harr responded he hired a contractor from Waukesha, a teacher,
who was paid to do the job. Mr. Harr also hired a separate
mason who built per the survey.
Mr. Rowinski questioned the plat of survey, whether the garage
is four feet from the lot line or ten feet, as someone has
scratched over the numbers on the survey submitted. Mr.
Dykstra stated the original survey stated 4 feet from the lot
line at the time of submittal.
Chairman Fohr questioned what all the stuff was by the driveway
that he had seen when driving by for an inspection. Mr. Harr
stated he has one shed and a dog kennel on the lot.
l�il.rf _iinr It liclrrpfiul. —rJclrr.ilria( 94rrcl !v cr,,Fl:vriu��raila'lira- - - .
Page 2 Board of Appeals Minutes from December 2, 1993
Mr. Harr stated he bought the house several years ago and since
that time has beautified the house thus beautifying the
neighborhood. He feels there was just a misunderstanding
otherwise he would have built the garage where the Building
Department wanted the building.
Mr. Pionek swore in Mr. Harr, Mr. Ingersoll, Mr. Fred Bauer,
and Mrs. Harr.
John Ingersoll questioned why Mr. Harr was being put through
this ordeal, he did have a permit to build the garage at the
location the garage is standing.
Mr. Dykstra informed Mr. Ingersoll that just because one City
employee makes a mistake that does not make City rules invalid.
The proper procedure is to revoke permit issued in error. Mr.
Dykstra stated he has had several telephone conversations with
Mr. Harr trying to work out a solution.
John Ingersoll stated it was only by chance this error was
discovered, there is no guarantee the Inspector would have
detected problem if he had made the inspection as required.
Mr. Dykstra stated case law provides for revoking the permit,
fixing the situation or coming before the Board of Appeals, if
not resolved then the court system may have to resolve the
issue.
Mr. Rowinski question Mr. Harr as to what he is actually using
as a hardship. Mr. Harr stated his wife was having
reconstructive surgery, it has not been labeled as a permanent
disability. However, when choosing the location, he has to
take into consideration the well and sewer inspection caps.
Mr. Rowinski also questioned if Mr. Harr has extensively
remodeled his home, why is it he is not aware of the
inspections that are required. Mr. Harr replied his brother in
law is a contractor and he took care of the inspections.
Mr. Harr stated Mr. Pete Theis and Inspector Don Simon both
were aware of where the driveway was going in and if there wab
a concern, they should have stated so at that time.
End of discussion on Mr. Harr. Mr. Gerald Fohr stepped down as
his appeal was being heard next.
Mr. Pionek chaired the next portion of the meeting.
Mr. Fred Bauer stated he has comment on the Harr appeal. Mr.
Bauer stated he is concerned that Mr. Harr built the garage on
an easement lot, not his own lot. There was a discussion
regarding ingress and egress on Silver Drive.
APPEAL #33-93 - Mr. Gerald Fohr, S75 W17237 Janesville Road,
Muskego, Wisconsin, 53150, appeared requesting an appeal to the
Page 3 Board of Appeals Minutes from December 2, 1993
decision of the Planning Commission per Section 17:.308(1).
The Plan Commission on November 2, 1993, relative to Resolution
#P.C. 206-93 voted to deny a request to expand the current
Conditional Use Grant. Mr. Fohr wants approval to display 40
cars, current approval allows 3 cars for sale an any one time
at this site.
Mr. Dykstra stated this property is located in a S3 zoning and
car sales are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in this
zoning as well as in a B4 zoning.
Mr. Dykstra further went on to explain at the time of the
Conditional Use hearing a number of people spoke against the
trend of selling cars at gas stations in the City and the Plan
Commission did not want to start this trend either. One person
at the hearing stated if Plan Commission allowed this site to
have 40 vehicles then she was going to come back to Plan
Commission and request more cars.
Mr. Dykstra stated Mr. Fohr was at the Public Hearing for the
expansion of the Conditional Use Grant but was not present for
the Plan Commission meeting when the request was denied.
Mr. Erno questioned if the area would need blacktop. Mr.
Dykstra stated display area for boats, trucks and cars needs
blacktop, but recently gravel has been allowed for boats.
Mr. Fohr stated there is no state law requiring blacktopping.
Mr. Pionek administered the a sworn oath to John Ingersoll,
Collette Giefer, Laurie Czaplewski, Gerald Fohr and Chuck
Dykstra.
Mr. Fohr stated he went to the Plan Commission meeting to
expand the three car allotment, he feels there are different
standards for everyone in town and there is ample room in the
city to run a car business, the only problem is there is no way
you can run a car dealership with three cars.
Mr. Fohr stated he has no intention to install flags or signs
on the gas station, he intends to abide by all offsets and
setback areas.
Mr. Vitt questioned if Mr. Fohr offered to blacktop the area?
Mr. Fohr asked why blacktop area for only three cars, he has
every intention to blacktop if additional cars are approved.
Mr. Pionek questioned who sets the limits for the number of
vehicles. Mr. Dykstra explained there is no specific formula,
the Plan Commission looks at the area. A recent Zoning
bulletin talks about Conditional Use Grants and the importance
of making a determination giving careful consideration to the
surrounding community.
Page 4 Board of Appeals Minutes from December 2, 1993
Mr. Vitt explained he received a letter at home questioning the
impact a car dealership would have on the area.
Mr. Fohr feels it would be a positive impact, his customers
come from Franklin, Milwaukee, West Allis, as well as Muskego
and all these people could spend money.
Mr. Vitt asked about the aesthetic impact a car lot would have
there with 20 or more vehicles.
Mr. Fohr replied a dealership is a quiet operation, really no
different than the operation there now with the activity on
Lannon Road caused by Pick and Save. There would be no
streamers, no signs on light posts, no flashing lights. He
plans on installing a sign on the inside of the station
window. He will not have chalk writing on the windshields.
Mr. Fohr presented photographs of how he is planning on lining
up the vehicles.
Mr. Pionek questioned when the Conditional Use Grant was
granted. The Conditional Use Grant was approved January, 1993,
allowing three vehicles, and in November, 1993, the Plan
Commission denied to expand the Conditional Use Grant.
Mr. Vitt questioned why Mr. Fohr is requesting 40 vehicles.
Mr. Fohr replied he may never have 40, but why not ask for the
maximum the lot would hold. He feels in three years he would
have to move to a large facility.
Collette Giefer stated she is concerned about the aesthetics,
she feels people are trying to improve downtown Muskego, and in
her opinion a used car lot is not needed. She also went on to
state this is a very busy intersection and a busy thoroughfare,
where will customers park? She was concerned about the overall
plan of the operation. Collette Giefer stated downtown Muskego
is not the location for this starter business.
Laurie Czaplewski, owner of United Autobody, said she had two
concerns. one being she has 9/10 of an acre and has approval
for 12 cars, but selling cars is not the main concern for the
business, the body shop is. Secondly, she has no problem with
the Mobil Station selling used cars, but just not 40 of them.
She questioned where the customers of the Mobil Station will
park. Ms. Czaplewski further went on to explain in the two and
one half years she has been selling cars, all her customers
have been from Muskego.
Collette Giefer questioned if the property were all flat as per
the drawing, will there be cars parked in the ditches?
Mr. Rowinski asked if the drawing was to scale. Mr. Fohr
stated yes, Metropolitan did the drawing. The ditches are
outside the lotlines.
Page 5 Board of Appeals Minutes from December 2, 1993
Mr. Fohr stated there is room on the property for 40 vehicles
plus customers, employee's vehicles and cars to be serviced
between the pumps and the station, the diesel pump will be
removed.
Mr. Rowinski questioned if there isn't a potential to inhibit
the service station. Mr. Fohr stated no.
Mr. Pionek asked if there were any code restrictions on the
number of cars allowed. Mr. Dykstra explained no specific
section in the code book deals with number of vehicles allowed.
Mr. Pionek questioned if there were four cars would asphalt be
required and would the ten feet from the lot line be required.
Section 6.04(4)c and (4)a deal with surfacing in a residential
area. (This site is within 500 feet of a residential area).
Mr. Dykstra stated all parking requirements are tied to floor
space of the business, not outside anything. There is no set
rule.
John Ingersoll asked if there were codes regarding gas
stations. And if the gas station is there under a Conditional
Use Grant, weren't you opening up the grant when asking to
amend it?
Mr. Fohr stated his hardship was the fact you can not run a
business with only three vehicles.
Mr. Dykstra stated there is no specific hardship needed when
appealing a Plan Commission decision as there is when appealing
a zoning issue, however, it must be shown that Plan Commission
errored in their decision.
Laurie Czaplewski stated there is a state rule that requires
used car lots to display a sign. Also, she feels that Mr. Fohr
could sell three cars every day, every week, or 40 cars per
month or only three cars per month. The issue is Mr. Fohr has
always had more than the allotted three vehicle which she feels
is a slap in the face to the Plan Commission. Ms. Czaplewski
questioned why the Building Department has not taken issued
with the fact there have been more vehicles at this sight? Mr.
Dykstra stated when Mr. Fohr was on the agenda for the Plan
Commission or for the Board of Appeals, this stays any action
until decision is granted.
Mr. Fohr informed the Board that the following used car
dealerships have more cars than he was allowed: Pioneer: 14
cars, United: 10 cars, Erdmann: 12-14 cars.
Mr. Vitt asked Mr. Fohr where the display stall would be
located. Mr. Fohr replied in the repair stalls. And as for
having a sign, Pioneer Auto has a sign inside there window,
there is none outside.
Page 6 Board of Appeals Minutes from December 2, 1993
Mr. Pionek asked Mr. Fohr why he asked for forty cars. Mr.
Fohr said he went for the maximum, the Plan Commission made no
mention of compromise.
Collette Giefer asked if other used cars dealerships have only
10 -14 why ask for 40. Mr. Fohr agreed with her point.
Mr. Rowinski questioned why Johnny's Petroleum was not required
to blacktop when they have a Conditional Use Grant to sell
trucks. Mr. Dykstra stated Johnny's Petroleum was
grandfathered in with no asphalt under an older Conditional Use
Grant.
Ms. Laurie Czaplewski asked how many letters were received
against this issue. Two were received, one from Salentine, and
one from State Farm Insurance.
Mr. Fohr stated that not every gas station wants to become a
used car lot, for instance, not Open Pantry, not the Clark
Station, not Johnny's Petroleum, and RPC Classic Cars is not a
used car lot, but repairs vehicles. Besides, the Mobil Station
is the only gas station in downtown Muskego. Mr. Fohr went on
to state Plan Commission never gave him the opportunity to
allow less than 40 cars, but were 100% against him.
Mr. Pionek questioned if ten vehicles would be allowable. Ms.
Czaplewski stated she requested 20 cars and was allowed 12 cars.
Mr. Vitt stated the fickle finger of fate happened, there was
just no compromise. Did Mr. Fohr ask for less cars? Mr. Fohr
replied, no.
John Ingersoll asked the Board of Appeals if Mr. Fohr could go
back to Plan Commission to amend his Conditional Use Grant?
Mr. Dykstra stated again that Mr. Fohr left during the former
Plan Commission meeting. Ms Rae asked about asphalting, she
never asked for less cars.
Mr. O'Neil asked Mr. Ingersoll when Casanova's was selling
boats at Mr. Ingersoll's lot if Mr. Ingersoll complained that
there were so many boats there? Mr. Ingersoll stated Dale over
stepped Plan Commission approval.
Mr. O'Neil brought up the issues of overcrowding the property,
no sale office, grease rack display (shed not a proper display
area). Mr. Fohr stated he is using the station counter as
office space.
Mr. Erno stated all this hollering about forty cars, how small
would Mr. Fohr go and what is the length of time is he going to
stay at this location?
Mr. Fohr stated he would be there three years before he would
out grow this site. He could also rent a hold area.
Page 7 Board of Appeals Minutes from December 2, 1993
Mr. John Ingersoll questioned again if Mr. Fohr could go back
to Plan Commission to amend his Conditional Use Grant should
the Board of Appeals turn him down.
Mr. Dykstra replied yes, if he substantially changed his
request.
Collette Giefer stated Plan Commission would ask for asphalt,
screening, etc., and the petitioner should indicate those
items,if it were her, she would.
John Ingersoll warned Board of Appeals to be careful of
deciding other issues than the number of cars. A significant
change of the proposal the Plan Commission might accept.
Mr. Dykstra stated the Board of Appeals has the option to waive
a fee in the event Mr. Fohr has to return to Board of Appeals
on this issue.
Mr. Pionek asked if the Board of Appeals couldn't make a
recommendation to the Plan Commission regarding this issue.
Mr. Fohr stated he was uncomfortable going back to Plan
Commission, they have no respect for small businessmen.
Collette Giefer stated she doesn't agree, she had to go back to
Plan Commission numerous times when building their condos.
Laurie Czaplewski spoke to the Board of Appeals stating she
will respect their decision, however, it sounds like favor time
for one of the boys. She warned them to be careful of opening
up Pandora's Box for anyone wanting to expand their business
after tonight's meeting.
Mr. Vitt stated he takes offense at that statement, Jerry is
the appellant, not one of the Board of Appeal members at this
point.
Ms. Czaplewski stated she was getting this impression from Mr.
Fohr, not from the Board, she will respect their opinion, there
is no favoritism here. she feels the Board will play by the
rules, lairly.
Mr. Fohr stated that is all he wants, is to be treated fairly.
APPEAL # 34-93 - Chambers Dental Group, S76 W17619 Janesville
Road, Muskego, Wisconsin, 53150, requesting one variance a
18'0" setback variance from Section 17:8.13(7)2. requirement of
60'0", to allow the construction of a freestanding sign 42'0"
from the centerline of the Janesville right of way.
Mr. Dykstra stated Dr. Chambers wants to locate the sign 42'
from the centerline. Mr. Dykstra also stated Dr. Chambers did
not provide a survey, however, the base setback line is in
front of the building.
Page 8 Board of Appeals Minutes from December 2, 1993
Mr. Pionek administered the oath to Dr. Chambers.
Dr. Chambers was asked if his sign would be closer to Highway L
than any of the other signs along that strip. Dr. Chambers
stated that Mr. Haag's sign is 40' but the bank's sign is
closer than that to the road. This sign would be non -
illuminated at present. The Plan Commission accepted subject
to Board of Appeals approval.
-------------------------------------------------------------
-THE MEETING REMAINED IN OPEN SESSION.
APPEAL #32-93 -- Mr. Tom Harr, S65 W18422 Ruby Drive, Muskego,
Wisconsin. Mr. O'Neil made the motion to approve variance as
submitted. The hardship being the location of well casing and
sewer clean out pipes on the property. Mr. Fohr seconded,
motion passed upon roll call vote.
APPEAL #34-93 - Chambers Dental Group, S76 W17619 Janesville
Road, Muskego, Wisconsin. Mr. Rowinski made the motion to
accept appeal as submitted. The hardship being the location of
the building and this would also continue with consistency of
other signs already permitted. Mr. Erno seconded, upon roll
call vote, motion carried.
STATE STATUTE 19.85(1)(a) THE BOARD OF APPEALS WENT INTO CLOSED
SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELIBERATIONS CONCERNING CASES WHICH
WERE SUBJECT OF A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING; SAID CASE BEING
APPEAL #34-93. MR. FOHR AND MR. DYKSTRA LEFT THE MEETING AT
10:10 P.M.
THE MEETING WAS REOPENED, AS POSTED, AT 10:45 P.M.
APPEAL #33-93 - Mr. Gerald Fohr, S75 W17237 Janesville Road,
Muskego, Wisconsin. Mr. O'Neil made the motion to deny appeal
as submitted, and waive future fee, if same appeal is
requested. Mr. Pionek seconded, roll call vote: Mr. Rowinski,
abstained, Mr. O'Neil, Mr. Erno, Mr. Berken, Mr. Pionek, and
Mr. Vitt voted yes. Motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT: - There being no turther business, Mr. Rowinski
made the motion to adjourn. Mr. Berken seconded, motion
carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Schroeder
Recording Secretary
CITY OF MUSKEGO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 62.23
(3) 6. that a public hearing will be held at the Muskego City
Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue, at 7:30 P.M., Thursday,
December 2, 1993 to consider the following appeals:
APPEAL #32-93 Thomas F. Harr
S65 W18422 Ruby Dr.
Muskego, WI. 53150
REQUESTING: 2 Variances:
1) A 6'0" offset variance from Section
17:8.08.(3) and 17:9.04(3) requirement of
10'0" to allow a detached garage within
410" of west property line.
2) A 20'0" setback variance from Section
17:9.04(7)E.l. requirement of 50'0" to allow a
detached garage within 3010" of a public water
body.
ZONING: RS3-OLS
APPEAL #33-93 Mr. Gerald Fohr
S75 W17237 Janesville Road
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Appealing the decision of the
Planning Commission per Section 17:3.08(1).
The Plan Commission on November 2, 1993
relative to Resolution #P.C. 204-93.
voted to deny a request to expand the current
Conditional Use Grant.
Petitioner wants approval
current approval allows 3
one time at this site.)
ZONING: B3
to display 40 cars,
cars for sale at any
APPEAL #34-93 Chambers Dental Group
S76 W17619 Janesville Rd.
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: 1 Variance:
1) A 1810" setback variance from Section
17:8.13.(7)2. requirement of 60'0", to allow
the construction of a freestanding sign 42'0"
from the centerline of the Janesville right of
way.
ZONING: B3
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
Gerald Fohr, Chairman
Dated this 17th day of November, 1993
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, 679-4100.
TXTBOA/NOTICE
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
Application for Variance
Applicants Name THOMAS F. HARR
Subject Property Address:
Telephone
Property Zoning:
679-3342
S65 W18422 RUBY DRIVE
a -C(-5
Key # 2174-172
Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable):
owner lessee other
Fees: $80.00
Date inspector denied permit:NOT DENIED
Requesting variance to Section j'�; �( )) M-( (3) 1 I7 q,G4 (1)E•1.
a'
To allow: A GARAGE TO BE BUILT 4,01 FROM THE LOT LINE NEXT TO
ABL
W
A literal enforcement o t the terms of the above -referenced section
would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship
because:
MY WIFE HAS HAD RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY AND CANNOT
WALK UP THE STEPS TO THE OTHER PARKING AREA -ALSO
SHE IS GOING TO HAVE SURGERY DONE AGAIN ON HER OTHER
FOOT IN JANUARY, 1994.
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 GARAGE IS ATTRACTTVF; AND TMPROVES THE APPEARANCE
OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DOES NOT INTERERE WITH ANYONE
OR ANYTHING.
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety
or jeopardize public welfare because:
THE GARAGE IS ON MY PROPERTY.
Page 1 of 2
'IXT7CRK. 80AVAR
4-6-93
_ r4L�C
4� Ai
O,V
rz
x
lei
24'
/I R ` 1
Rop4el
121
a
f�GoI.LoR
c ro
�4tRp
/6X 7fS+eel 51,j-L
* 1
a e.n b } t
K���