Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES February 261h 2020 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Krasniewski,Wesley Kottke,Barbara Schmitz EXCUSED: Cheryl Hintz, Kathryn Larson STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Zoning Administrator; Katie Breselow, Recording Secretary Chairperson Krasniewski called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of June 12, 2019 were approved as presented. (Schmitz,Krasniewski) ITEM I: 812 E MURDOCK AVENUE Wisconsin Public Service Corp-applicant/owner, requests the following variance to permit fencing to exceed the maximum allowable height: Description Code Reference Maximum Proposed Fencing Height Limit 30-192 (F)(1)(a) 6' 76" Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The subject 0.77 acre (approximately 33,474 square feet) property is zoned Institutional (1) and is currently developed with an electric utility substation. The irregular-shaped parcel is located on the north side of E. Murdock Avenue and the east side of Bowen Street. The applicant is proposing to replace perimeter fencing currently enclosing an existing electric substation facility. The new fence is proposed to be in the same location as the existing fence and is needed for security and safety purposes. The fence replacement is one part of the overall facility upgrades planned at the large scale public utility. A variance is needed from the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards to construct the fence improvements. Specifically, the proposed fencing is 76" from finished grade to the top of panel as illustrated in WPS Installation & Grounding Details plan sheet BNS-08-010-01. The parcel is subject to additional national safety code standards as outlined in the petitioner's application. These requirements prevent any by-right alternative to construct the proposed improvements within the local zoning ordinance standards. Subsequently, complying with the required bulk regulations for the district would be unnecessarily burdensome in this instance and some variance is necessary for the improvements. The need for enhanced safety and security measures at the site is a unique property circumstance and creating justifiable hardship. Based on the information, approval of the variance is recommended. Drew Bain, 700 N. Adams St, Green Bay, WI. He stated that Mr. Muehrer summarized the request very well that Wisconsin Public Service is looking at a renewal project at this station of all the aged equipment. That includes bringing the fence to current standards to meeting the requirements sent before them by the NESC and the NAELC. He asked if there were any questions by staff. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 February 26,2020 Mr. Carpenter mentioned that he is a stock holder of WE energies but does not believe that it should effect the item presented. Mr. Kottke asked to explain what the National Electric Safety Code and North American Electric Reliability Corporation standards are and who puts those out. Mr. Bain explained that the NAERC is an organization set forth by the federal government to set liability standards for the electric companies across the United States because of a blackout that happened in 2003 in the New York area. They are in charge with setting the standards and then put forth the standards to his company. Their standards are for the safety of the public. The NESC is similar to NAERC for residential, industrial, and commercial. His company is governed by the NESC for a variety of codes. Their code states the fence has to be a minimum of seven feet for the fence panel. Mr. Carpenter asked if the fence has barb wire. Mr. Bain confirmed that the fence does have barb wire, one foot with three strands. Mr. Muehrer explained that if the Board would turn to page 11 they would see a picture of what the fence will look like. Mr. Krasniewski stated that he downloaded the standards offline and it stated that the fence should be no less than 2.8 meters, 7 feet in height or a combination of 1.8 meters, which is 6 feet, or more of fence. 700 millimeters or 1 foot using three strands of barb wire. It appears to be legitimate and he can understand the reason for it but saw a little discrepancy in what was required. He then asked why it is chain-link and not a different material. Mr. Bain answered that currently it is chain-link but in the future it will be expanded metal. Mr. Krasniewski asked what the difference was between the materials. Mr. Bain explained that the difference was that expanded metal is much more secure metal they call "no cut no climb". With chain-link one can stick their hand through it and climb up it, one cannot stick their hands or fingers inside given it is a quarter inch in thickness and the openings are roughly an inch tall by half inch. Chain-link has much more flexibility to it and expanded metal has a more rigged panel. Mr. Krasniewski mentioned that Sun Prairie utilities has built solid walls around their stations. Mr. Bain replied that ATC has gone to concrete walls around anything that is around 345 kb. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the walls look nice. Mr. Muehrer mentioned that page 12 shows a significant blow up that is much easier to read and see the foot of barb wire and panels in more detail. Mr. Carpenter motioned to approve the variance as requested. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 February 26,2020 Seconded by Ms. Schmitz. Mr. Carpenter asked about other fencing options that are available. Mr. Krasniewski replied that another option is solid fencing but secure metal is what they are going to be putting up. Mr. Carpenter confirmed that chain-link was not going up. Mr. Kottke stated that the variance makes sense to approve at this point as the applicant has a hardship and they have standards they are trying to meet. Mr. Krasniewski replied that it will add to the safety in that area. Approved 4-0. Findings of facts: Board finds that the increased height of the fence as proposed by Wisconsin Public Service is approved. There is a hardship, as there are national codes the applicant needs to follow, which causes a hardship given the current local ordinance. No harm to the public and provides a benefit to the public as it provides better safety. Discussion of BOA Procedures: Mr. Muehrer mentioned the next meeting would be a workshop with the City Attorney's office to go over processes and procedures as there are no BOA items submitted. Ms. Breselow asked how the board would like their no meeting notice, electronic email or paper copy. All members agreed to electronic. She then asked if they prefer their attendance reminders by electronic email or paper copy. All members agreed to electronic emails. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:49 p.m. (Kottke/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 3 February 26,2020