Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals Packet 04232026CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA 04/23/2026 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of the October 27, 2026 meeting. ZBA Minutes 20221027.pdf C4 01C ISKEGO � 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 appeals described below. The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session. NEW BUSINESS Appeal # 01-2026 Petitioner: Rodney and Colleen Peaslee Property: W184 S7735 Kelly Drive / Tax Key No. 2195.978 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 400-18 of the Municipal Code (Zoning — Zoning Board of Appeals), the petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 400-208 B. — Swimming Pools Pools and hot tubs should not be located any closer than the required setback, per the zoning district, to any right-of-way line and should be no closer than 10 feet to any other side and/or rear property line not adjacent to a right-of-way. Surfaced terraces shall be permitted no closer than three feet to a lot line where accessory to a private residential pool. Sun decks shall be permitted no closer than five feet to a lot line where accessory to a private residential pool. In any other case they shall be permitted within the setbacks and offsets on the property. On the corner lot referenced above, a front setback of 40-feet is required from each lot line adjacent to the right-of-way/roadway for a pool. The petitioner seeks a setback of 22.4 feet from the northern lot line and a setback of 23.5 feet from the eastern lot line for the allowance of the replacement of a swimming pool and is therefore requesting a 17.6-foot variance from the northern lot line and a 16.5-foot variance from the eastern lot line. APPEAL 01-2026 SUPPLEMENT.pdf APPEAL 01-2026 MAP.pdf APPEAL 01-2026 SUBMITTAL.pdf OPEN SESSION MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURN V102irea 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 TO GATHER INFORMATION; NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL BODY 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 MUSKEGO CITY HALL, (262) 679-4100. K UNAPPROVED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS I �'\ ,Ike Cry W MINUTES T JSKEGO 2022 U 6:00 PM fy �l� 6:00 Muskego City Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Blumenfield called the meeting to order at 6:01 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Dr. Blumenfield, Mr. Harenda, Mr. Dyszelski, Mr. Schneiker and Mr. Patterson Absent: Mr. Boschert and Dr. Kashian STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting laws. 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 appeals described below. The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session. NEW BUSINESS Appeal #01-2022 Petitioner: James & Nancy Moeller Property: W 179 S6700 Muskego Drive / Tax Key No. 2174.863 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 400-18 of the Municipal Code (Zoning — Zoning Board of Appeals), the petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 400-23 A. — Building Location Location restricted. No building shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except in conformity with the following locational regulations as hereinafter specified for the district in which it is located. A front/right-of-way setback of 40-feet is required from the eastern side lot line along Ranch Drive. The petitioner seeks a setback of 16.6 feet from the east side lot/right-of-way line for the allowance of a garage addition and is therefore requesting a 23.4-foot variance from the required front/right-of-way setback along Ranch Drive. OPEN SESSION Mr. Schneiker swore in the following: James Moeller, W179 S6700 Muskego Drive Nancy Moeller, W179 S6700 Muskego Drive 3 David Branski, W191 S7192 Luehring Drive June Doyne, W179 S6721 Muskego Drive Nancy Schmidt, W179 S6650 Ranch Drive Adam Trzebiatowski, Planning Manager James Moeller explained the history of the situation. He bought the house in 1980 and raised three kids so he needed a place to put everything. Brian Misko was an alderman at the time who raised racing pigeons with a couple coops in his yard, and he told Mr. Moeller that he needed to get a coop also. Mr. Moeller moved a truck box from his farm to alongside the garage with half being a coop and the other half for storage. Brian Misko said everything was clear with the city and he didn't need a permit for outside storage and everyone can have an outside storage on their property. Mr. Moeller didn't believe he did anything wrong since he was told he could put it alongside the garage. Mr. Moeller believed he was just replacing what he had. A couple years ago he built a shed alongside the garage. Chairperson Blumenfield asked what the hardship was. Mr. Moeller explained that he is boxed in with Muskego Drive, Ranch Drive and Earl Drive with no where to go and where the lean-to is located fits the property and everyone that sees it says it looks like a million dollars. Chairperson Blumenfield clarified that his hardship is the size of his lot and Mr. Moeller said that it was. Mr. Harenda asked if the metal container was attached to the building with a foundation. Mr. Moeller said that it was not attached and just on concrete blocks. Mr. Harenda then asked if the lean-to, or addition has a concrete base and Mr. Moeller said that it does have a concrete floor now. Mr. Branski noted that he lives on Little Muskego Lake and understands rules and regulations and being conforming on the lake. He built a house 12 years ago and had a permit dispute due to lot lines where his house would have been 6 or 7 inches off the lot line incorrectly based on different surveys. He was worried about having a non -conforming house and understands Jim Moeller's situation when he put up a lean-to without opening up to the garage. He said that Mr. Moeller's lot is pie shaped where the house is non -conforming now and in the future for someone to buy. He can't build on except along the north side. If that is done, it wouldn't be practical use -wise because you only have a certain area you would want to use for outdoor space for a patio and it is a different grade. He built it furthest to the east, it is out of site and a small little addition to protect valuables. When you sell something in the future you are selling a non -conforming garage and would turn off prospective buyers. Ms. Doyne, said the she can see directly into the Moeller's yard every day. She understands the trials and tribulations with property lines and conforming. The Moeller's property is very tidy and their yard is completely fenced in and you cannot see the shed or anything else due to the placement of the home, garage and fencing. It doesn't impede anyone's property and it would be a big hardship for James to have to move or remove the shed. He allows people to park on his gravel and grass for the water bugs. It would be a hardship to remove it and their property is a staple in the neighborhood. Ms. Doyne would be really hurt if they were forced to remove or move the shed. Ms. Schmidt wanted to say she has been on Ranch Drive for 67 years and the Moeller's take wonderful care of their property and are amazing neighbors. He made a mistake and was not aware he made a mistake. He knows there are rules and made a mistake. It would be a shame if the Board made him take the lean-to down. Mrs. Moeller understands the 40-foot rule, but for them to put the storage shed somewhere else would make the yard look obsolete. It is the perfect spot that is out of the way and doesn't block anyone's views, it matches the house and garage. They can keep their stuff locked up. There is never going to be a road widened or new home built as everything is established so she questions what it is going to hurt by leaving it there. Chairperson Blumenfield asked when the concrete slab was installed for the patio furniture and if they pulled a permit for that. Mrs. Moeller said she did not remember. Adam Trzebiatowski, Planning Manager explained that this issue came up due to a complaint from an Alderperson. Staff visited the property and sent a couple letters to the homeowners. All zoning districts in the city except the RL lots, which are lots abutting the lake, have a 40-foot setback. There are many homes that were built before the codes were in effect that are grandfathered in just like the existing garage. The Moeller's discussed this with staff and staff provided them options and a variance was one option, removing the lean-to or moving it to another location are other options. Staff tries to work with applicants where possible. Related to Earl Drive, the addition is stepped back from the existing garage from Earl Drive so there is no issue there. The issue is the setback from Ranch Drive where the setback is 16.6 feet from the legal lot line along Ranch Drive where it is 4 supposed to be 40 feet. The existing garage is non -compliant so even if they would have come to us before the addition was built they would have been advised that it wouldn't work. Staff would have offered and have offered afterwards the potential ability to expand toward the north or west. State Statutes and case law talks about options and only if there are no other options, but in this case, there are other opportunities to go to the north or west. Staff provides a couple handouts to applicants thinking about a variance that explain and have examples of Zoning case law and state law. One example would be that the variance cannot be self-imposed or cannot be a circumstance of the applicant. The desire for a larger garage is not a reason to grant a variance. The code does allow for a size limit of accessory structures. Everyone is allowed an accessory building, but there is nothing that states you are allowed a certain amount by right. A lack of objection from neighbors is not a sole reason to grant a variance. It is offered and could be helpful to know that there are not any aggrieved neighbors and we have not heard any of that today. Another case law states that a variance if granted must be the least or most minimal variance possible. Since there are other options on the property that don't need a variance this isn't a factor. Case law also discusses financial hardship and the Moeller's haven't discussed this, but if there was ever a question or comment regarding finances, that should not be figured in for a variance. There is a three -step test that boards should be looking at. The first step is unnecessary hardship. A necessary hardship exists when compliance would unreasonably prevent the property owner from using the property for a permitted purpose. If someone would think this is unnecessarily burdensome they should look at if there are any other options. Unique property limitations are also something the Board should look, but minor grade changes shouldn't be an issue. The last test would be that there be no harm to the public interest. Staff agrees that there is no public harm. One issue the Board should be careful of is when dealing with a structure built without a permit. The petition should be looked at the same whether it is existing today or if they were asking ahead of time. There should be no benefit to having the structure built already. Another issue to be careful with is that this is not setting any precedent that says if something is built without a permit you can just leave it. This isn't a test of aesthetics, so the board shouldn't be looking at whether it looks good or not. If the variance is not granted, the structure would need to be removed within a reasonable amount of time. The Board would be responsible for providing a timeframe. If the variance is granted then the petitioner would need to apply for a building permit that would include building plans just as if the building wasn't built. Planner Trzebiatowski explained the financial limitations that would be allowed based on the legal non -conforming status of the garage for an expansion. Mr. Schneiker asked where the values for the garage came from. Planner Trzebiatowski said that the assessed value came from the assessor as required by the Code. Mr. Schneiker asked if the addition was put on the north side of the house as if there was any topography. Planner Trzebiatowski mentioned that there is a grade change, but the lean-to is also a step lower as it is now. Mr. Schneiker asked if the lean-to takes up more space than the box that we set there previously. Planner Trzebiatowski noted that we weren't exactly sure as we are working off of aerial photos. The petitioner added that the lean-to is wider but shorter than the truck box. Mr. Harenda asked if they are asking to leave the structure, not add to the structure. Planner Trzebiatowski confirmed they are asking to leave what is there. Mr. Harenda asked if anyone has spoken to the alderman. Planner Trzebiatowski noted that that was where the complaint came from. However, when the original complaint came in it may have been a different alderman that the current due to some redistricting. Mr. Harenda noted that he did drive by the property and it is clean and you cannot see the lean-to and is a good steward for the community and it did start as a coop. Mr. Harenda asked if you need a permit for a coop. Planner Trzebiatowski said a permit is needed and there is no roofed feature you can put on your lot that does not need a permit. 4i Mr. Harenda asked how this sits as far as greenspace. Planner Trzebiatowski noted that the survey shows that as it sits today, they are compliant with greenspace requirement. Mr. Harenda is looking for future solutions and asked about a point of sale would have caught this. Planner Trzebiatowski noted that when those permits were required, it was only for safety issues not what violations can be found. Mr. Harenda asked if anyone has ever waived the triple permit fees for building without a permit. Planner Trzebiatowski noted that is not a staff level waiver that can be granted. Deliberations: Mr. Harenda noted that they have been given options for moving the lean-to by staff to the north side of the building so there are options to move forward to what Muskego is looking for. Chairperson Blumenfield noted that this is complicated as the board would like to approve the appeal as individuals and citizens as they appreciate the effort brought to the board. However, the board is restricted from simply approving the variance because of state statute and City codes. There are limits to what the board can do and the board must have a hardship that is applicable to the case that may include topography or that there are other extreme measures that don't allow petitioners to do something that would otherwise be permitted. Otherwise, the board and city could be liable to legal action if there isn't a valid hardship. A valid hardship was not presented. As much as Chairperson Blumenfield would like to support the appeal as an individual, she cannot support the variance due to a lack of hardship. Mr. Harenda noted that the Board is bound by the rules as previously stated and agrees with Chairperson Blumenfield if the Board would approve this it would be setting up the City for other liabilities. Mr. Harenda made a motion to approve Resolution Appeal #01-2022 to deny the variance for James & Nancy Moeller at W179 S6700 Muskego Drive / Tax Key No. 2174.863 for a 23.4-foot variance from the required front/right-of-way setback along Ranch Drive based on the fact that Mr. Moeller believed he was just replacing what he had and that he didn't believe he did anything wrong since he was told he could put a pigeon coop alongside the garage previously without a permit as a hardship. Mr. Dyszelski seconded. Upon a roll call vote Resolution Appeal 01-2022 was approved unanimously 5-0 denying the variance. Chairperson Blumenfield noted that a timeframe is needed for the lean-to to be removed or replaced. Planner Trzebiatowski suggested a spring date with winter coming. Chairperson Blumenfield made a motion to have a plan in place and any applicable permits obtained by March 1, 2023 with a removal date of July 31, 2023. Mr. Dyszelski seconded. The schedule of permitting/removing the existing lean-to was approved unanimously 5-0. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of the July 22, 2021 Meeting. Mr. Schneiker made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 22, 2021 meeting. Mr. Dyszelski seconded. Motion to approve the minutes passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS - none ADJOURN Mr. Schneiker made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Harenda seconded. Meeting adjourned at 7:03 PM. Respectfully submitted, Aaron Fahl, AICP Planner City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 01-2026 For the meeting of. April 23, 2026 REQUESTING: 1. Under the direction of Chapter 400-208 B. — Swimming Pools Pools and hot tubs should not be located any closer than the required setback, per the zoning district, to any right-of-way line and should be no closer than 10 feet to any other side and/or rear property line not adjacent to a right-of-way. Surfaced terraces shall be permitted no closer than three feet to a lot line where accessory to a private residential pool. Sun decks shall be permitted no closer than five feet to a lot line where accessory to a private residential pool. In any other case they shall be permitted within the setbacks and offsets on the property. On the corner lot referenced above, a front setback of 40-feet is required from each lot line adjacent to the right-of-way/roadway for a pool. The petitioner seeks a setback of 22.4 feet from the northern lot line and a setback of 23.5 feet from the eastern lot line for the allowance of the replacement of a swimming pool and is therefore requesting a 17.6- foot variance from the northern lot line and a 16.5-foot variance from the eastern lot line. APPELLANT: Rodney and Colleen Peaslee LOCATION: W184 S7735 Kelly Drive / Tax Key No. 2195.978 CITY'S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND The property owner is looking to replace their former pool with a new pool in the same location that was previously permitted. The previous pool was issued a permit from the City to be built in 2000. At that time the code restricted pools to a 10-foot offset/setback from any property line. The previous pool was permitted with a setback of 22.4 feet from the northern lot line and 23.5 feet from the eastern lot line. In 2013 there was a code change approved that updated the pool location requirements to not allow pools within the front setbacks of the specific zoning district. In this zoning district, RS-3, a front setback from any lot line adjacent to a roadway is 40 feet. The owner has noted that the pool was/is screened with a 6-foot tall vinyl privacy fence that completely conceals and hides the pool from public view. The pool meets all other requirements of the code. The petitioner is seeking the following variance: A front setback of 40-feet is required from each lot line adjacent to the right-of-way/roadway for a pool. The petitioner seeks a setback of 22.4 feet from the northern lot line and a setback of 23.5 feet from the eastern lot line for the allowance of the replacement of a swimming pool and is therefore requesting a 17.6-foot variance from the northern lot line and a 16.5-foot variance from the eastern lot line. Appeal # 01-2026 ZBA 4/26/2026 Page 1 of 3 7 DISCUSSION Based upon the information submitted, staff does not see a valid hardship, based on case law and State Statutes, to allow a pool within the front setbacks. The owner has stated in their submittals that they believe there are two hardships causing the need for the variance including: • The uniquely shaped corner lot does not allow for the placement of a pool anywhere else on the site. • Waukesha County's eminent domain acquisition in 2012 for a portion of their land to accommodate the widening of Janesville Road left them with even less space for a pool. Relating to the reasons that the applicant has noted in their application and noted above for their request, here is a summary of the variance standards that are applicable to this case: 1. Zoning Case Law states that "self-imposed hardships" and "circumstances of the applicant" are not grounds for granting a variance. The RS-3 Zoning District 40-foot street setback applies to many properties in the City. The desire for a pool is not something that the code requires, but rather something that the code can allow if the applicable code requirements are met. With that being stated, we can acknowledge that the previous pool was permitted and met the requirements applicable at that time. The owner has looked at other places on the lot to place the pool, but the currently proposed area is the only open lawn space available to them for a pool. 2. Zoning Case Law states that "lack of objections from neighbors does not provide grounds for granting a variance", if applicable. No objections have been received as of the drafting of this document, but that alone is not grounds to grant a variance. 3. Zoning Case Law states that the Board may only grant the minimum variance needed, if they are going to grant any variance. Given the shape/size of the lot, there is limited area available to build a pool on this lot. The existing home and driveway consume the bulk of the building pad on - site. 4. Zoning Case Law states that "financial hardship" does not justify granting of a variance on its own. With that being said, the applicant has noted that they have already purchased the pool at a cost of $6,000 and they placed a $600 deposit towards the pool install. 5. Per the Zoning Board Handbook, using the three -step test which looks at unnecessary hardship, unique property limitations, and no harm to public interest, the following can be found: a. Unnecessary Hardship — Unnecessary hardship exists when compliance would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for the permitted purpose (leaving the property owners without any use that is permitted for the property) or would render conformity with such restrictions "unnecessarily burdensome". The applicants believe that denial of the variance would impact the full use and enjoyment of the property that is typically available to typical standard lots. Also, there are no conforming options as it relates to the placement of a pool on this property. b. Unique Property Limitations — Unnecessary hardship must be due to physical limitations of the property. The applicant has stated that their corner lot has two front yard setbacks that apply and their lot does not have a traditional backyard for a pool. These items leave no compliant location for a pool on this lot. Given the two roads, the loss of property due to eminent domain by Waukesha County, and the existing home and driveway location, the buildable area of the property is already consumed. c. No Harm to Public Interest — A variance may not be granted which results in harm to public interest. The applicant has stated that there is no harm to the public interest since there has been a pool on site since 2000 without issue and they are just looking to replace the pool at the same size and in the same location. Also, since the property contains a solid 6-foot tall fence that surrounds the pool area, the pool is not visible to the public. Please see the applicant's full submittal for full details of their request. Appeal # 01-2026 ZBA 4/23/2026 Page 2 of 3 NOTE: Please remember that the City must base their recommendation upon a valid hardship as defined by State Law and Zoning Case Law. Zoning Case Law states that a hardship must be unique to the property, it cannot be self-created, and must be based upon conditions unique to the property rather than conditions personal to the property owner(s). Case Law also states that a hardship should be something that would unreasonably prevent the owner from using their property for the permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. The Zoning Board of Appeals needs to find a valid hardship in order to be able to approve a variance request. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS: Denial of Appeal 01-2026 as proposed, allowing a pool within the front setbacks; citing that there is no guaranteed right to be able to have a pool on a property unless all the code regulations can be met. Appeal # 01-2026 ZBA 4/23/2026 Page 3 of 3 9 '.Jl :3 l \ , t Rodney & Colleen Peaslee W184 S7735 Kelly Drive &C4,f lTSKEGO APPEAL #PC 01-2026 Supplemental Map Agenda Item(s) Right -of -Way Properties 0 100 200 Feet I I I Prepared by City of Muskego Planning Department GN OO \\ \ SRO 4 r 10 r Print Application & C4 W DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE APPLICATION PACKET MUSKEGO PLANNING SERVICES - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Applicant (Please Print or Type) Date: 103/30/2026 Name: Rodney and Colleen Peaslee Business Name: Address: IW184 S7735 Kelly Drive City: Muskego State: IWI Zip Code: 53150 Phone Number: Fax Number: Mobile Number: 4143499496 E-mail Address: peas5@5bcglobal.net Property Owner (Please Print or Type) This section can be left blank if the same as above. Name: Business Name: Address: City: I State_.; Zip Code: Phone Number: Fax Number. Mobile Number: I E-mail Address: Please fill out the information below regarding the proposed dimensional variance. Location/Address: IWI 84 S7735 Kelly Drive Muskego, WI 53150 Tax Key Number(s): MSKC2195978 Describe the Variance Request: equesting a variance to the city code regarding swimming pools in effort to replace n above ground pool (which was originally permitted by the City of Muskego in 000). Parcel does not allow for set back minimi_ims. Page 1 of 6 N Describe the effects on the property if the variance is not granted: Hardship List the specific hardship(s) relating to your variance request: Alterrati .ms ere would be no long term physical effects on the property if the varaince is not anted other than having to relandscape the area of the origian! pool. We removed pool in the fall of 2025 due to structual concerns regrading the integrity of the of walls (which were 25 years old). ,lthough we understand that economic hardship is not a sole or prioroty onsideration, we have already spent $6000.00 on the new pool as we did not nticpate any code compliance issues as these were resolved in 2000. We also made a 600.00 deposit on the installation which is slotted for mid May 2026. All on -refundable. Ve have a uniquely shaped corner lot that does not allow for a pool placement that adheres to the city's swimming pool set back requirments. In addition, Waukesha :ounty's eminent domain aquisition of a portion of our land to accommodate the anesville Road expansion (unfortunately) left us with a non -conforming lot. Describe alternatives to your proposal, such as other locations, designs and construction techniques, etc. Alternatives that you considered that comply with existing regulations: Reasons for not pursuing the alternative(s) listed above: Je worked with both the City and the County extensively in 2000 and it was etermined that there was no code complaint area on our lot for a swimming pool. Je collabratvely agreed on the current loccation as the most viable option. A Page 2 of 6 M r Alternatives that you considered that require a lesser variance: (if applicable) Reasons for not pursuing the request for a lesser variance: (if applicable) A n Three -Step Test To qualify for a variance, the applicant must demonstrate that their property meets the following three requirements. Do unique physical characteristics of your property prevent compliance with the ordinance? Explain? Would granting of the variance be contrary to the public interest? Explain? Why would not getting the variance unreasonably prevent you from using the property for a permitted purpose (leaving the property owner without any use that is permitted for the property) or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome? stated previously, we have a corner lot and there is not a traditional back yard. our )use sits approximately 20 feet from the back property line. To one side of our house the driveway that allows access to the garage and to the other side is the open area hich serves as the side yard. This side yard runs along Kelly Drive and Janesville )ad. There is no protion of our yard that does not run alongside a roadway. City dinances and our lot size/shape do not allow any possibilty to meet roadway set ick requirments. pool has existed in this location since June of 2000. We are replacing the pool with le exact size/model in the exact location of the original pool. We also have a 6 foot inyi privacy fence which runs along both roadways and prevents visibility of the pool the public. In 25 years, there has never been an incident or situation that has been etrimental to the public interest. And of course, installation would meet all city rdinace safety regulationsas the prior pool did. Denial of the variance would impact the full use and enjoyment of our property typically available to standard or traditional lots. Full use includes structures customarily incidental to a home such as garages, sheds, decks, and personal swimming pools. No conformity options exist. Page 3 of 6 Iq If this form has been filled out electronically, please click on the "Print Application" button on the top of page 1 or to the right of this text, I Print Application Once the application is printed/filled out it can be submitted to the Planning Services Division along with any applicable information required for your submittal. Please see the attached sheet to ensure that the proper supporting documents are submitted along with this completed form. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE PROCEDURE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS WILL RESULT IN THIS APPLICATION BEING WITHHELD FROM CONSIDERATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT ANY LEGAL, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES INCURRED BY THE CITY, fN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING A PROPOSAL OR APPLIf-ATION, BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS FEE SCHEDULE, WILL BE CHARGED BACK TO THE PETITIONER / APPLICANT I OWNER / DEVELOPER F " I-G i% RECOVERY. (Ch. 3.085/Ord. #909) Sign ,ure of the Property Owner: Signature of the Applicant (working as "Agent' for the owner): '?-o�-, SEAS\--E Print Name: Print Name: e1;—r(0 Date: Date: For Planning Services Use Only Submittal Date: Staff Signature: IFees Paid: Yes No Public Hearing/Meeting Date:I == I Page 4 of 6 Lo T ALL THAT PART OF THE SOUTWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 20 EAST, IN THE CITY OF MUSKEGO, WAUKESHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE SOUTH 88'58'34" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 1/4 SECTION, 1054.95 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF KELLY ESTATES SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 02'47'14" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 699.77 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 88'56'14" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, 262.79 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF KELLY DRIVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE ALONG AN ARC OF A CURVE 224.51 FEET, CENTER LIES TO THE LEFT, RADIUS OF 563.30 FEET, THE CHORD BEARS NORTH 12'27'36- WEST, 223.02 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE NORTH 23'53'26" WEST, 16.49 FEET TO A POINT BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE SOUTH 66'25'34" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 85.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 23'53'26" WEST, 172.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF C.T.H. "L"; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 66'25'32' EAST, 85.80 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF KELLY DRIVE; THENCE SOUTH 23'53'26" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 172.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO DESCRIBED IN REEL 2329, IMAGE 561, DOCUMENT NO. 2166978 AND EXCEPTING DOCUMENT NO. 3989393. SAID DESCRIPTION CONTAINING 14,839 SQUARE FEET, 0.341 ACRES. -5011 0�00�0 ;SpRo3• 55 NE / i 0 � 60' � a� $ P� P�`-E \`\ _PARCEL B_ C.S.M. 3037 � N \ i \ \ POOL ` ALL HOUS ASURM NTS ARE C� 7� \ TO T OUNDATION. -� HOUSE �� \ s UNPLATTED LANDS ink 2 DRI `O` \ CURVE DATA SHE ARC LENGTH=224.51' CH. LENGTH=223.02' 5 6625�� 2736"W xRADIUS=563.30' N 23'53'26" W i\\ 16.49' LOT 1 KELLY ESTATES SURD. 5 88'58'1 w 262.79' i� a PLAT OF SURVEY FOR: RODNEY AND COLLEEN PEASLEE W184 S7735 KELLY DRIVE 0 MUSKEGO, WI. 53150 W s in - m in LEGEND N • 3/4" REBAR SET z W o 3/4" REBAR FOUND 0 2" IRON PIPE FOUND Y co T f FNORTHII MW -ice � �` .l'D'.'•a h. -VIM Sf INORIH EASTI ..... ..... mv Tk co T CD N T" N s L M