Loading...
PSCM19970602• PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE - CITY OF MUSKEGO MINUTES OF MEETING HELD MONDAY, NNE 2, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 7:05PM by Chairman Patterson. Present were Aldermen Don Pionek, Mark Slocomb and Chairman Patterson. Also present were DPW Director John Loughney, Building Inspection Director Chuck Dykstra, and the individuals on the attached sign up sheet. Police Chief John Johnson was excused. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (L) Bldg Director Dykstra reported on status of condemnations and citations issued by his department per attached memo to the committee. (2.) Bldg Director Director Dykstra reported the revised electrical code revision still at attorney for review and a new building permit application form has been developed which includes a "Cautionary Statement" required by statutes (sample attached). (3.) DPW Director Loughney reported on status of refuse and recycling: 16 complaints received in May, most were regarding big items left behind and not picked -up with trash (they were eventually picked -up). DPW Director Loughney reported the "FAX BACK" responses have improved. Alderman Slocomb •questioned tire pick up policy, DPW Director Loughney informed the tires get picked -up with the recyclables every other week, one tire is allowed each pick-up cycle. (4.) Committee discussed status of cable tv and the creation of a subcommittee to work on evaluation of community needs, creation of policies, procedures, operation guidelines, chain of command, public access, government access or school access possibilities. The subcommittee would report back to Public Services with their findings or recommendations. Motion by Alderman Pionek to establish a subcommittee to work on evaluation of community needs, creation of policies, procedures, operation guidelines, chain of command, public access, government access or school access possibilities and report back to Public Services with their findings or recommendation. Committee appointees to include Alex Buechel, Linne Bruskewitz, Ron Stevens, Vicky Gussy and Alderman Patterson. Motion seconded by Alderman Slocomb. Motion carried 3-0. (5.) DPW Director Loughney had nothing new to report relative to landfill agreements. (6.) Bldg Director Dykstra presented the latest draft of the proposed residential point of sale program ordinance, which included the changes requested at the May Public Services meeting. Bldg Director Dykstra explained the references to "table #1" and "table #4" and clarified the purposes of same (to allow the fees to be changed by resolution). The tables do not become a part of the ordinance, they are only referenced as the location to find the related fees. Bldg Director Dykstra also clarified that smoke • detectors will be inspected pursuant to established state regulations. PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE - CITY OF MUSKEGO • JUNE 2, 1997 - PAGE 2 Motion by Alderman Pionek recommending Residential Point of Sale Ordinance be forwarded to City Attorney for review; minutes to reflect Public Services recommends Funding for Attorney review be approved by Finance Committee; Section 30.51 (existing Code Compliance Ordinance) be simultaneously repealed with adoption of this ordinance; Point of Sale Code to be forwarded to Common Council with recommendation for approval upon successful review of attorney. Motion seconded by Alderman Slocomb. Motion carried 3-0. Alderman Slocomb inquired about several sections of the proposed Business Registration Code and Bldg Director Dykstra addressed same. Committee directed Bldg Director Dykstra to make changes similar to those recently made to proposed Point of Sale Code and bring back next month. Motion by Alderman Slocomb, to have Bldg Director Dykstra create a resolution establishing fees for the Business Registration Program, at $30 if no inspection required and $100 if inspection required and forward to Common Council at appropriate time to coincide with ordinance effective date. Motion seconded by Alderman Pionek. Motion carried 3-0. (7.) Alderman Pionek reviewed concerns with existing "Mother -in -Law" approval process, specifically effects public hearing can have on outcome of petition for same. Chairman Patterson concerned that elimination of Public Hearing requirement would eliminate surrounding citizens ability to provide • comment. Alderman Slocomb feels should be permitted use. Motion by Alderman Slocomb, directing Plan Department to develop a resolution and required ordinance modifications to the residential district regulations to create a definition (attached) of Mother -in -Law units and include same in section 2 of the Municipal Zoning Ordinance, also, eliminate conditional use requirement making the Mother -in -Law unit a permitted use in all residential zoning categories. Motion seconded by Alderman Pionek. Motion carried 2 for - 1 against (Chairman Patterson against). NEW BUSINESS: (L) Committee members reviewed HAWS Agreement and related fee increases. Motion by Alderman Slocomb to approve the 1997-1998 agreement as proposed. Motion seconded by Alderman Pionek. Motion carried 3-0. (2.) The request for no parking signs on Garnet St. were discussed, questions were raised over actual area affected and possible ramifications of posting a certain area only to shift the parking further down the road. Motion by Alderman Pionek to direct DPW Director Loughney to review area in question and 40 determine where no parking and/or no parking with trailer signage should be PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE - CITY OF MUSKEGO • JUNE 2, 1997 - PAGE 3 installed and report same to Alderman Slocomb, who would then present recommendation to the Common Council. Motion seconded by Alderman Slocomb. Motion carried 3-0. (3.) William and Jeanine Deering appeared to request the Committee consider a change to the Building Code (currently in process of being revised) which would exempt horse stalls and riding areas from the current concrete floor requirement. Much discussion took place regarding appropriate materials for the floors of horse stalls or stable areas and the Deering's produced substantial documentation relative to the issue. Bldg Director Dykstra informed Committee members of current exemptions available to "farmers" (over 35 acres and meeting certain income requirements). Mrs. Deering felt current code unjust, since zoning allows for horses once someone owns 2-3/4 acres, yet building code requires concrete floor regardless of buildings proposed use and agricultural exemption is not available until someone has 35 acres. Motion by Alderman Pionek to create exception to concrete floor requirement in building code, to state: Exception - concrete floors shall not be required in stable areas and/or riding areas of detached accessory buildings used for housing equine. Change to take place within current process of rewriting building code (chapter 30). Motion seconded by Alderman Slocomb. Motion carried 3-0. Bldg Director Dykstra informed Deering's the code rewrite process may take from 90 to 120 days to • complete (estimate) and that he would be willing to issue permit for the construction of this structure prior to the revisions becoming law, with the condition that no occupancy or use of the structure take place prior to - either the adoption and effective date of the revised code allowing no concrete in stable and/or riding areas - or the installation of concrete floors as currently required. Chairman Patterson reminded Deering's that this Committee has only 3 members which is not a majority of the Council and that this evenings actions do not guarantee the code will be revised as stated above. Mr. and Mrs. Deering confirmed they understood. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Patterson informed Committee of upcoming Alliance for Community Media (ACM) conference to be held July 9th - 12th. Committee directed Chairman Patterson to obtain costs so committee could determine if practical to send one or more representatives of cable sub -committee to same. Motion to adjourn by Alderman Slocomb at 10:50 P.M. Motion seconded by Alderman Pionek. Motion carried 3-0. Meeting adjourned. Respect S miffed, • Chuck Dykstra Sr. - Director Bldg Dept. Recording Secretary h:\cityhall\rainutes\pubserv\060297.doc ii • SIGN -IN SHEET FOR CITY MEETINGS PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND AGENDA ITEM BELOW. THANK YOU. f irBUG V/GES Date: - Az 21 NAME: ITEM sTivC?���'S • • • • • CITY OF MUSKEGO W182 S8200 RACINE AVE., MUSKEGO, WI 53150 INSPECTION LINE 414-679-4110 ` FAX LINE 414.679-5618 PERMITBUILDING APPLICATION Property Owner: General Contractor (if applicable): DILHR Registration # Property Owner Address: Contractor Address: Registration Expiration Date: City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip: Registration # required for all projects involving one and two family residences, it is not required for detached accessory structures such as sheds, garages or pools. Property Owner Phone: Contractor Phone: Address or Legal Description of Parcel(s) where work will be performed: Retail Value of Work being Performed: 1--AHome Addition U F—INew Shed (120 sq ft or less) New Deck ❑ Home Alteration ❑ New Accessory Bldg (> 120) Deck Addition LJ Home Repair ❑ Accessory Bldg Alteration ❑ Deck Alteration Home Reroofing ❑ Accessory Bldg Repair ❑ Deck/Pool Combo Home Re:siding ❑ Accessory Bldg Re:roofing ❑ Pool Above ground Foundation Repair ❑ Accessory Bldg Re:siding ❑ Pool Inground Triple permit,. assessed if work started without a valid.• Penalty fees will be assessed when work progresses.• �_-Cautiona"" StaternentToOwners Obtaining Building, Permits, 101.65(1r) of the Wisconsin Statutes requires municipalities that enforce,the Uniform. Dwelling Code to provide an owner whoapplies, for a building permit a statement advising the owner that If the owner hires a contractor to perform work under the buliding permit and the contractor is not bonded orinsured as required. under s. 101.654(2xa), the following consequences mightoccur.� , °vr • ` ' (a) The owner may be held liable for any bodily injury to or death'of others or for any damage to the property of others that arises out of the work performed under the building permit;or'that Is caused by any negligence of the contractor that occurs In ' connection with the work performed under the buildmglpermit. (b) The owner may not be ableto collect from the contractor damages for any loss.sustained by the owner because of a. violation by thecontractor of the one and two family dweling code or an ordinance enacted under'sub. (1)(a), because of any bodily Injury to or death of others or damage to the property of others that is caused by any negligence by the contractor that occurs In connection with the work performed under the tiulldmg permit; ' By signing as permit applicant below, I agree to comply with all applicable codes, statutes and ordinances and with the conditions of this permit: understand that the issuance of the permit creates no legal liability, express or implied, on the Department or municipality; and certify that all the above information is accurate. If I am an owner applying for a construction permit to allow work to be performed on a one or two family dwelling, I certify I have read and understand the Cautionary Statement above. Permit Applicant's Signature: Date: Inspector Signature approving permit: Date: h:\cd\BLDGAPP.XLS - cd - 5/8/97 REPORT BY CHUCK DYKSTRA, SR. TO THE PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE i JUNE, 1997 CITATIONS Meadow Green #3 - Gregory, Gloria, Gary and Pam Boehm #244513 Performing land disturbing activities without permit. Trial scheduled in Waukesha Circuit Court for January 3, 1997. Waukesha Circuit Court (1-3_-97), resulted in $10,000 forfeiture and 2 year probation period. Stipulation: $5000 due on or before May 3, 1996. Balance in 8 equal installments commencing on June 3, 1997 and continuing until January 3, 1998. $5000 received on May 15, 1997. w188 58276 Mercury Dr. - Dale Kreil DBA/Country Lakes Marine #244520 6 Performing construction alterations without a 255624 permit and performing alterations to plumbing without a permit. City appealing decision on plumbing citation to Circuit Court and Kreil • appealing guilty verdict on construction citation. Parties have stipulated to consolidate these two cases and one Plan Dept. case into one court. Jury trial scheduled December 17th. City filed motion with court for an injunction to stop Kreil from doing business until site is in compliance. Judge Mawdsley allowing 30 day extensions providing progress realized each 30 days. Attorney Trindl attempting to get hearing with Judge Mawdsley prior to December 17th trial to revisit injunction possibilities, since last deadline missed. December 17th trial rescheduled to January 7, 1997, and bumped to April 29, 1997. Injunction hearing tentatively scheduled for January 13, 1997. Judge Mawdsley on 1-13-97 required Kreil to reappear in court on February 24, 1997 and report progress made in addressing code violations. Continuing progress required. Kreil's architect submitted plans and permit application within allotted time - issue to be revisited in 30 days by Judge Mawdsley. No permits obtained to date, Attorney Trindl working to schedule new hearing regarding lack of progress. May 1, 1997, hearing rescheduled to May 13, 1997. Stipulation agreement in progress. E W151 810282 Thode Dr. - Robert Haffner r44523 Performing land disturbing activities without a valid permit. $999.88 citation paid 10-10-95 to County Court Judge stayed $10,172.12 balance. City appealing Judge's ability to stay forfeiture. • DNR permit approved, local permit issued February 29, 1996. Forfeiture issue not yet resolved by Court. Judge Murphy (Circuit Court) sent matter back to Judge Lenz; Judge Murphy ruled case not yet ripe for appeal. Scheduled to be heard in Muskego Court September 7, 1996. Parties could not agree on forfeiture matter set for trial October 5, 1996.Payment forwarded from County received 9-17-96 999.88 Adjourned from October 5th due to DNR staff schedule conflict, new date December 14, 1996. 12/14/96 trial, Judge Lenz upheld prior decision and maintained original forfeiture of $11,172. Haffner appealed decision January 3, 1997. Pretrial at county not yet scheduled. Judge Lenz required $1,000 bond be posted during appeal process. Status conference scheduled July 25, 1997, jury trial scheduled for August 41 1997. 5107 W17687 Muskego Dam - Wind Lake Management District M244539 Commenced and continued lake disturbing activities prior to paying required fees and receiving permit. Attorney Jeff Krill retained to represent District, no compliance to date. Initial appearance December 14, 1996, plead not guilty. • Scheduled for preliminary conference 1-22-97. Scheduled for pretrial conference 2-26-97. Adjourned to March 26th to allow for further negotiations. Mayor and Attorney still negotiating with Wind Lake. Trial scheduled for May 28, 1997. DNR was issued a permit to restore site, however, no resolution to original permit issue to date. May 28, 1997, trial cancelled, adjourned for 60 day, no new date set. W190 57602 Richdorf Drive - Daniel Serdyn M244540 Failure to make required corrections to deteriorated roof structure. Scheduled for initial appearance January 8, 1997. Mr. Serdyn filed bankruptcy - Lender's sale of home on hold. Letter sent to Mr. Serdyn reaffirming roof requires repairs by May 26, 1997. Trial in June. Permit obtained May 22, 1997, to repair roof. Work has not yet started on this project. TXTCITY/COUNCIL SAFETY E RESIDENTIAL POINT OF SALE CODE 33.50 TITLE This section shall be known as the "CITY OF MUSKEGO - RESIDENTIAL POINT OF SALE CODE" and shall herein be referred to as "THIS CODE". 33.51 PURPOSE In recognition of the fact that a substantial segment of existing residential housing stock within the City may not meet all applicable codes, due to work done without permits or failure to obtain required inspections, and understanding that printed Building Codes for the Town of Muskego are available as far back as May 4, 1938, which many homes do not comply with; the City finds a need for a program to determine basic levels of safety for residential structures within the City. Inasmuch as it is impractical to mandate complete compliance with all applicable codes for all residential housing within the City due to structural, access and cost considerations, THIS CODE has been created to ensure that BASIC SAFETY CONCERNS are addressed and required corrections are made PRIOR TO THE SALE of any existing residential property. 33.52 SCOPE The provisions of THIS CODE shall apply to all residential housing stock within the City of Muskego. A SAFETY CERTIFICATE shall be obtained from the Building Inspection Department prior to any NEW RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY, except that, no such certificate shall be required upon change of rental or lease tenants if there is no transfer of ownership involved. For purposes of THIS CODE, transfer of ownership shall include land contract or lease purchase agreements and in the case of the sale of residential property to a person or persons who have occupied the dwelling up to the time of the sale (relatives, tenants, etc.), the POINT OF SALE INSPECTION will still be required. • (1.) SAFETY CERTIFICATES issued under THIS CODE shall remain valid for a period of 12 months from the date of issuance. Properties transferring ownership within 12 months of receiving a SAFETY CERTIFICATE shall not be required to obtain a new POINT OF SALE INSPECTION. 33.53 APPLICATION OF THIS CODE All residential housing stock within the City of Muskego, including any residential dwelling units which may be located within commercial or other non-residential structures shall comply with the provisions of THIS CODE, subject to the following procedure: (1.) Any owner of residential housing stock or AUTHORIZED AGENT, within the City of Muskego, shall complete a POINT OF SALE - INSPECTION REQUEST FORM (which can be obtained from the Building Inspection Department, located in City Hall), prior to completing the sale or other qualifying transaction process. For purposes of THIS CODE, authorized agent status shall be verified through the use of a form provided by the City, which the business owner signs thus authorizing agent status. (2.) The completed POINT OF SALE - INSPECTION REQUEST FORM shall be returned to the Building Inspection Department along with the applicable fee. (3.) Upon receipt of the completed POINT OF SALE - INSPECTION REQUEST FORM and applicable fee, Building Inspection Department staff will inform owner or authorized agent of available dates and times available to schedule the inspection. Inspections will not be performed if children under the age of 18 are present without a supervising adult on premises. • (4.) An inspection following the criteria set forth in 33.55 will be performed on the date and as near as possible to the time as scheduled. (5.) Upon correction to the inspectors satisfaction of any items found to be unacceptable during inspection, the Building Inspection Department shall issue a SAFETY CERTIFICATE, which shall allow the finalization of the respective transaction and subsequent occupancy. 33.54 FEE REQUIRED Prior to scheduling the required inspection and at the time the POINT OF SALE - INSPECTION REQUEST FORM is submitted, a fee, as from time to time established by resolution of the Common Council and listed in Table #4, shall be collected. Such resolution shall remain on file with the Clerk Treasurer and in the Building Inspection Department. 33.56 INSPECTION CRITERIA Inspections required by THIS CODE shall be limited to the following areas: (1.) Outstanding orders or violations of record corrected. (2.) Required occupancy or fire separations intact and correct for intended use and in consideration of adjacent tenants where applicable. (3.) City issued building numbers in place, per Muskego Municipal Code, Chapter 8, Section 8.03(12). (4.) Property free of junk and debris, yard mowed to 6' or less. (5.) Building exterior, gutters and eaves maintained so as not to detract from the visual • character of the adjacent property, downspouts not directed to adjacent property. (6.) Exterior of structure weatherproof. (7.) Interior and exterior stairways, patios, walks or decks in good condition - for purposes of THIS CODE, good condition shall mean no surface irregularities in excess of 3/4", nor voids in surface in excess of 3/4" Guardrails and/or handrails to be in sound condition. However, for purposes of THIS CODE, the height of guardrails and spacing of balusters will not be measured or verified, unless permits have been obtained to modify same. (8.) Windows in good condition, operable windows have screens or storms installed and are in good condition. Screens shall be required from April 1st to October 1st — Storms required balance of year Double or triple pane windows shall not require storms. (9.) Exterior electrical fixtures/receptacles adequately protected from the weather and appear intact. (10.) Entry and egress doors operate freely and pathways to and from same are clear and unobstructed. Interior keyed deadbolts are prohibited. (11.) Hot and cold running water available. (12.) Interior electrical fixtures/receptacles in good condition -for purposes of THIS CODE, good condition shall mean fixture assembly complete, receptacle covers in place and are not cracked or broken. • (13.) Toilet rooms have hot and cold running water, light fixture and operable exhaust fan or openable window. (14.) Toilet room floors in sanitary condition - for purposes of THIS CODE, sanitary shall mean free from elements of filth and noticeable molds or fungus. (15.) Plumbing fixtures functional and free from leaks. (16.) No plumbing cross connections apparent. (17.) Sump pump, if present, discharges in accordance with Muskego Municipal Code, Chapter 16, Section 16.20. (18.) Backflow protection measures in place. (19.) Smoke detectors in place and functional. (20.) Electrical panel enclosure intact, cover or door operates property, any unused openings plugged, overcurrent devices labeled. (21.) Exterior enclosure of heating units and exhaust vent pipes (to chimney) have no readily visible cracks or voids (no inspection of heat exchanger performed). (22.) Chimney flue not affected by installation of high efficiency equipment (newer equipment may require resizing or relining of chimney). (23.) Exterior inspection (from grade level) of chimney reveals no obvious defects. No attic or interior inspection of chimney performed. • 33.56 RECORDS Records of SAFETY CERTIFICATES issued and related inspection details, shall be kept in the Building Inspection Department and shall be available for viewing upon request. 33.57 PENALTY FEE A penalty fee as from time to time established by resolution of the Common Council and listed in Table #4, shall be collected when the ownership of a residential property located within the City of Muskego has been changed without first obtaining a SAFETY CERTIFICATE. Such resolution shall remain on file with the Clerk Treasurer and in the Building Inspection Department. For purposes of THIS CODE, a change of ownership shall be as defined in 33.52 SCOPE. 33.58 VIOLATIONS It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to permit the change of residential property ownership within the City of Muskego, without first obtaining a SAFETY CERTIFICATE. Persons, fines or corporations violating any provision of THIS CODE shall, upon conviction, be subject to a forfeiture of not less than fifty dollars ($50) or more than five hundred dollars ($500), together with the costs of prosecution and, in default of payment thereof, shall be imprisoned for a period of not less than one (1) day or more than six (6) months or until such forfeiture and costs are paid. It shall be the responsibility of the offender to abate the violation as expeditiously as possible, and each day that such violation is permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense. 33.69 CODE COMPLIANCE NOT DETERMINED The following text is provided to further explain the scope and purpose of this code. (1.) THIS CODE is intended to be used as a tool to insure minimum safety standards • are met. It is not intended to verify compliance with all applicable plumbing, heating- air conditioning, electrical or building codes. It is recommended that a professional engineer, architect or other qualified inspector be retained to perform a 10 complete and comprehensive inspection of the premises if verification of complete code compliance is desired. (2.) Code specific issues such as guardrail height or baluster spacing will not be verified through this code. Inspection will be limited to verifying that a sturdy guardrail is in place, but will not verify the actual height of same. (3.) Permit research will not be performed, other than to determine if there are outstanding orders or violations relative to the structure, building location or owner. Exception: In cases where work is in progress, recently completed or in cases where an installation is obviously hazardous, an inspection of the Building Inspection Department records may be performed to determine if proper permits have been obtained. (a.) Work found to be performed without a valid permit, shall require the current building owner to obtain the required permits (certain work may require a licensed contractor be hired who would be responsible for obtaining permits). All such AFTER -THE -FACT permits shall be assessed a penalty fee as listed in TABLE #1 (available for viewing at the Building Inspection Department counter). 33.60 LIABILITY THIS CODE shall not be construed to relieve from or lessen the responsibility or liability of PREVIOUS or CURRENT OWNERS, person(s) who have performed work on said structure, including but not limited to, using, operating, controlling, installing, altering, repairing, removing, replacing, disturbing, connecting, disconnecting or maintaining any electrical, plumbing, heating/air conditioning, or building code related items, for damages to persons or property caused by any defect therein or therefrom; nor shall the City or its authorized Inspectors, be held as assuming any such responsibility or liability by reason of issuance or failure to issue any SAFETY CERTIFICATE, or the inspection or reinspection authorized by THIS CODE, or by reason of the approval or disapproval of any items addressed by THIS CODE. Nor shall the City or it's authorized Inspectors be held liable for any damages resulting from the enforcement of THIS CODE. hAWTONTOS.DOC - CD - 06/03/97 Mother-in-law Units Any portion of a single family residence that has an independent wing or area that is self-supporting in terms of livable needs (i.e. includes a kitchen, bath, den and bedroom), but is pendent on the utility infrastructure of the primary residence. The unit is not to be more than 800 square feet. It may have one access door to the exterior and the second access must be through the main part of the house and not lockable. Another access maybe allowed to the garage if the garage does riot have a service door. The unit also has to be occupied by a close relation to the occupants of the house. The above to be included in Section 2 of the Zoning Code. What about a conditional use grant': - if neighbors turn out to the hearing and are against the unit, the P.C. will turn • the request down, where if no one appears or there is no opposition, the request is granted. Should we either do away with mother-in-law units or grant all of them? Should we have yearly inspection? and have fines if unit is not in compliance? Should this unit be assessed different? Should we make sure before granting units, that this unit is able, at a later date, to be turned into usable space within the existing structure, such as a master bedroom, closet and bathroom combination? The enclosed are comments from the Planning Department. Please look this over and bring your comments to the Public Services Com. meeting on June 2nd. cosy y' �s c� cry w. 3 �'j /lf e r �`C= < - — L -f � c, " TS • In response to the two Public Hearings scheduled for Mother-in-law units, the Plan Department investigated past and present practice for applying and permitting for a Mother-in-law unit, how neighboring municipalities define and permit mother-in-law units, and the level of recording for mother-in-law units and the number of city departments involved. It was concluded that there lacks an encompassing definition for what constitutes a Mother-in-law unit. In overview, the current process of requiring a Public Hearing and Conditional Use Grant does work In review, the Planning Department recommends the following changes: I Continue the current requirement for applying and processing for a conditional use grant for a mother-in-law unit. 2. Expand the level of communication and tracking between City departments by: 3. Tagging all parcels that contain a mother-in-law unit I the Building Department's HTL database, 4. Distribute a copy of the conditional use grant to the Building Department, Assessor's Office, and Utilitiess Other municipalities were contacted to determine how they dealt with Mother-in-law units. No municipality had an established policy or definition that refers to mother-in-law • units. Four city departments were questioned on how they dealt with mother-in-law units. Each had its own interpretation and • MOTHER IN LAW UNITS What Are They: There is no true definition in the City of Muskego Zoning Ordinance that defines a Mother -In -Law (MIL) Unit. Under permitted conditional uses the Zoning Ordinance allows for a two family residence, provided the architectural character is dominantly single family in appearance; the second unit does not exceed 800 square feet of residential floor area; and one person in each unit is related to a person in the other unit by blood, marriage or adoption. The definition, however, is vague and leaves a lot to be desired. During zoning review, it has become a subject call with no definite set of parameters to follow. Several other terms exist for MIL units, these include nanny units, granny units, servants quarters, etc. Prior to American suburbanization, many homes included MIL units or a variation thereof. It was common to incorporate two or more kitchen units in a large home. These were extras or luxuries used for either seasonal or promotional purposes. On farmsteads, many homes included MIL units. These were used for the expanding family or for working hands. With the enforcement of zoning policy and the development of defined language for a single family, MIL, units fell into the definition of a two-family or duplex status. Today, as the demographics of society change, MIL units provide an economical • alternative for caring for the elderly. With the cost of independent and dependent care of the elderly sky rocketing, more and more families will take on the responsibility of providing for their elders. The primary question is what happens once the MIL unit no longer provides a need to the existing family. As time goes on, these units become adolescent or young adult units, providing them the freedom and flexibility of being on there own, yet under the care or guardian of adults. But what if the mother-in-law dies, or the children move on. The MIL unit now has the potential of providing a revenue producing asset. For example, in the case of farm dwellings, MIL units were converted into duplexes. These were latter grandfathered as townships incorporated. This was due to the lack of an adequate system to record of existing units. What happens if the home is sold. Many listings will use and advertise a MIL unit. This increases the value and selling power of the home. What are the guarantees that the MIL, unit will continue its primary use? In 1995, of the 112 new single family residential building permits issued, three (3) contained conditional use grants for mother-in-law units. Roughly one permit has been issued since 1985, that contained a conditional use grant for a MIL unit. Only 1996 did not include one, only because it has been deferred to this year In a quick review of City . records, 16 conditional use grants have been issued for MIL units by the City since 1968. • What do other communities do? During the research for this issue, eight (8) neighboring communities were contacted for there interpretation for a MIL unit and how they dealt with them. Of the eight (8) communities contacted, no one had a definition that described what constituted a MIL unit. Only two were able to provide some description. Each community was asked how they handle MIL units. A MIL unit was described as a single family home that had an independent kitchen and bathroom wing with its own sleeping quarters. A majority of the communities denied that any such unit existed in their communities. At that point, it was assumed that maybe the description was being interpreted incorrectly. Most of these communities were recontacted and a different term or description of a MIL unit was used. Mixed results were received. The basic assumption gathered was that most communities were within a similar state as we are. No descriptive definition existed outside the Zoning Code definition for a single family unit and no definition existed in terms of the interpretation used during the building review process. In all cases, this matter was referred to a Building Inspector rather than a zoning officer. • Other departmental concerns: During the review, the impact MIL units had on other departments was reviewed. Building For the review of MIL units during the permit process, the Building Department has left this as primarily a zoning issue. Inspectors are aware of the components that compromise a MII, unit and its distinctions from a duplex. This includes review for utilities. If identified, usually the inspector will notify planning officials. In cases of renovations or additions to a home, additional kitchens and/or a bathroom call for a more thorough review. In terms of past precedence, however, MIL units are not discovered until the unit is near completion. Since several factors combined help create and produce a MIL unit, it is not until the actual finish product that a MIL unit is discovered. At this point, a petitioner is usually required to apply for a conditional use grant. Hope is that they would cooperate at this point, and in most case, they don't, in which legal avenues are required. Assessor The Assessor's office once coded MIL units under a style type. A style type is an indication of the type of home being built, this would include a ranch, colonial, condominium, etc. This would code the file as a MEL as a separate class. This procedure was stopped since a MIL unit did not define a house style. The lack of a clear definition made an MEL unit a byproduct of a style, not a style of its own. Notes are now taken and • marked on the file to indicate a MIL unit. • Utilities MIL units are charged a higher rate for each additional bedroom beyond that of the primary home. This policy has been primarily a local one. No definition exists from the Metropolitan Sewer District for a MIL unit, it has primarily been left up to the municipality to decide. In 1989 Common Council, under recommendation of the Public Utilities Commission, established the policy to charge a residence containing a MIL unit its standard rec fee and increases the cost for each bedroom that is part of the MIL unit. In terms of water and salvage pickup, no distinction is made for MIL units. One positive note, all single family residences do go through a multiple review process. Each permit's building plans are reviewed by the Planning Department, Building Department and Assessors Office. In addition, utilities are informed of MIL units through the distribution of Public Hearing notices or Plan Commission agendas. Each department, however, interprets an MIL unit in its own terms. All to which leads to disagreements over what constitutes a MIL unit. These differences in opinion are over whether a large home, in which the petitioner can afford extra conveniences, be penalized? Should a kitchen define the overriding view of an MIL unit? Should the size of a MIL unit be restricted to 800 square feet? Is this an arbitrary size, or does validity exist in terms of its reasoning? (Of the past three CUG issued for MIL units, two were in excess of 800 square feet. The two being proposed for Planning Commission review are not.) With the Council's policy to charge additional rec fees for MIL units, a couple with three or more children pay would pay one rec fee, while a childless couple or single child couple would pay an additional fee for having a MIL unit. Is it assumed that the waste produced by an MIL unit would be more than that of a large family; yet, water usage and salvage collection is the same. Conclusion: After an exhaustive review, there seems to be no simple solution for addressing a MIL unit. Other municipalities all seem to have the same problem, the lack of a clear uniform definition that is applied and enforced by all city departments. The end result is that the multiple interpretations by different departments provides an inconvenience not only to the petitioner, but also to city personnel. It is recommended that the current procedure for MIL units remain the same, expand the tracking of MIL units through other departments and the Zoning Ordinance be amended to include a clearer definition for what constitutes a Mother-in-law unit. Each petitioner should be required a conditional use grant prior to construction. By requiring a Public Hearing, not only is the City better informed, but neighbors are alerted of the situation. For in the future, they are the eyes and ears of the City. Enforcement is predominately pendent on the neighbors. u • All current and additional MIL units should be recorded within the Building Department's data base to insure better tracking. This would provide inspectors with a flag indicating a MIL unit is part of the residence, requiring a further or more thorough investigation of the proposed alterations. Copies of the Conditional Use Grant should also be circulated to all the four primary departments mentioned above for their records. Finally, a definition must also be produced that still conforms to what currently exists under the permitted conditional uses in the City's Zoning Ordinance, but also incorporates the components that define a MIL unit. So what are the components of a MIL unit. Traditionally, multiple kitchens warranted a MIL unit. But what about a bar or game room. If a basement were to incorporate such items, does this make it a MEL unit? This has led to looking at utilities, such as the number of furnaces or water heaters. But many large homes utilize or require the use of two furnaces to heat up the home. A more practical way might be to look at the number of requested hook ups, such as gas, electrical or sewer. But this usually the dividing line of what is a single family unit and what is a two family unit. A probable definition for a mother-in-law unit would be any portion of a single family residence that has an independent wing or area that is self-supporting in terms of livable needs (i.e. includes a kitchen, bath, den and bedroom), but is pendent on the utility infrastructure of the primary residence. This definition is recommended to be included in Section 2 of the Zoning Code under Mother -In -Law Units. A reference to an MIL unit should be included along with that of the Conditional use grant definition for a two-family residence. • CITY OF MUSREGO W182 S8200 Racine Avenue, Muskego, WI 53150 Phone 679-5624 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor De Angelis Public Services Committee FROM: Jill DATE: May 27, 199 RE, 1997-1998 HAWS Agreement Attached is the 1997-1998 Humane Animal Welfare Socity (HAWS) Agreement. The current Agreement expires June 30, 1997. I briefly reviewed the Agreement to compare it with the present one. • The following are the noted changes in $ amounts: Pick up and transport charges: Increase from $15 per trip to $15.75 per trip with mileage increasing from 35 cents to 37 cents per mile. Daily charge: Increase from $8.50 to $9.00. City liability for seven-day period if animal is not redeemed: Increase from $59.50 to $63.00 Owner handling charge: Remains @ $15.00 The language of the Agreement remains the same. I will place this item on the June 10 Council agenda. The current agreement expires at the end of June. Thank you. jmb cc: HAWS File T)=JbM:14Mo-Ps • • �. — V �F9��N6 WAUKESHA t %)* SINCE 1969 May 15, 1997 City of Muskego W182 S8200 Racine Avenue Muskego, WI 53150 Dear Sir or Madam: HUMANE ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY OF WAUKESHA COUNTY, Inc. 701 Northview Road a P.O. Box B34 WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN 53187 Phone: (414) 542-8851 Enclosed is the Humane Animal Welfare Society's Agreement for stray animal care for the period commencing on July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998. The Society has been pleased to provide quality animal care to your municipality for over the past year and trust our services have been an asset to your municipality's stray animal control program. The Society's animal care services are presently being used by 30 Waukesha County municipalities. In reviewing our operational expenses associated with the care of stray animals during the past year, the Society has found it necessary to increase its fees approximately 5 percent for 1997-1998. In most cases pet owners will be responsible to assume the increase in cost. Overall, the Society has a 73 percent redemption rate for dogs throughout Waukesha County. Rising costs for medical care, emergency veterinary care, insurance, utilities and staffing require the Society to adjust its service fees to insure its continued level of service to your community. one copy of this Agreement may be retained for your records, and the remaining signed copy should be returned to the Society prior to July 1, 1997. In the interest of being fair and equal to all municipalities, we respectfully request that you do not rewrite our Agreement. Should you have any questions with regard to our Agreement, please feel free to contact our office. Yours truly, Mark A. Hess Executive Director MAH/j1V Enclosure A Privately Supported Non -Profit Organization Dedicated to the Humane Care and Treatment of All Animals • THIS AGREEMENT, entered into by and between the Municipality of CITY OF MUSKEGO, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin, with principal offices located at W182 58200 Racine Avenue, Muskego, Wisconsin, (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality), and the Humane Animal Welfare Society of Waukesha County, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, whose principal office is located at 701 Northview Road, Waukesha, Wisconsin, (hereinafter referred to as the Humane Society). WHEREAS, the Municipality from time to time, through its proper animal control work, acquires strayed, abandoned or unattended animals, and is desirous of a proper place to deposit such animals where they will receive humane care, and WHEREAS, the Humane Society is an organization devoted, among other things, to the care of animals and has the facilities to provide for proper care in a humane way for strayed, abandoned or unattended animals, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Humane Society agrees to accept for shelter • stray animals as they are delivered to this establishment by the officials of the Municipality and/or citizens who find stray animals within the Municipality and provide the animals with food, shelter, water, and humane care. 2. The Humane Society agrees to pick up and transport stray animals for the Municipality to the Society's shelter. Animals will be transported during the Society's normal operating hours which are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and Sunday from 1 to 5 p.m.. A charge of Thirty-seven Cents per mile and Fifteen Dollars and Seventy-five Cents ($15.75) per trip will be assessed in addition to normal boarding charges as explained in item #4 of this agreement. 3. For the purpose of this agreement a day shall be defined as and mean the care of one animal for twenty-four hours, providing for said animal, shelter, food, water and humane care. 4. The Municipality shall pay the Humane Society the sum of $9.00 per day for each and every animal delivered to the Humane Society from the Municipality. In the event that the animal is not redeemed by the owner, the Municipality shall be liable only for the care of said animal for the period of seven days or for the sum of $63.00, and in the event an animal is kept -1- • longer than that period of time, it shall be at the expense and cost of the Humane Society. THE EXCEPTION WILL BE STRAY ANIMALS HAVING BITTEN A PERSON; which shall be quarantined for ten days in accordance with the State Rabies Control Program, State Statute 95.21. The Municipality shall be financially responsible for normal costs incurred with testing suspect stray animals for rabies if ordered by the victim's physician. 5. In the event that the animal is redeemed by the owner, said owner shall present to the Humane Society proper receipt from the Municipality for the payment of a $15.75 handling charge plus boarding charges in connection with said redemption prior to the release of said animal by the Humane Society. THE EXCEPTION WILL BE: when requested by the Municipality, the Humane Society shall collect all fees associated with the transportation, boarding, handling and/or any municipal charges due prior to release of the animal to its owner. 6. The Humane Society shall keep good and accurate records which shall be open and available to inspection by the Municipality through its employees and agents at all reasonable times, and the Humane Society shall as soon as practicable after the end of each month during the life of • this contract, or extensions or renewals thereof, submit an itemized statement to the Municipality, and the Municipality agrees to remit within ten days, unless the Municipality questions the correctness of the statement, and in the event the parties agree to expeditiously as possible, resolve the controversy with a view toward prompt payment and without undue delay. 7. The Humane Society agrees to comply with all the rules, regulations and statutes of the State of Wisconsin, and the municipal codes of the Municipality as those statutes, rules, regulations and provisions of the code pertain to the keeping and releasing of animals to their owners. 8. In the event the Humane Society becomes insolvent, files a petition of bankruptcy, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or a petition of involuntary bankruptcy is filed against said corporation, then and in that event this contract shall become null and void at the option of the Municipality. -2- • • 9. This agreement shall be effective for a period of One (1) year commencing on July 1, 1997 and ending on June 30, 1998. Dated this day of , 1997. CORPORATE SEAL CORPORATE SEAL BY m A MUNICIPAL CORPORAT O HUMANE ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY OF WAUKESHA COUNTY, INC. MIC