Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-10-2021 Board of Appeals minutes REVISEDBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 February 10, 2021 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES February 10, 2021 PRESENT: Robert Krasniewski, Wesley Kottke, Cheryl Hentz, Barbara Schmitz EXCUSED: Kathryn Larson, Dan Carpenter STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Zoning Administrator; John Zarate, Chief Building Official; Rachel Anderson, Recording Secretary Chairperson Krasniewski called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Mr. Muehrer discussed with the board members the minutes of August 12, 2020 were not finished due to changes in staff and the minutes will be completed by the next meeting. ITEM I: 1316 Broad Street Patricia A./Russel B. Diener-applicants/owners, request the following variance to permit side and rear yard fencing to exceed the maximum height allowance: Description Code Reference Maximum Proposed Fence Height 30-192(F) 6’ 7’6” Mr. Muehrer presented the item and shared photos of the subject site. Ms. Hentz stated she would like to disclose that she attended grade school with the applicant Patti Diener but this will not impact any decision. Patricia A./Russel B. Diener-applicants/owners, request the following variance to permit side and rear yard fencing to exceed the maximum height allowance. The subject 0.28 acre (approximately 12,550 square feet) property is zoned Single Family Residential - 5 (SR-5) and is currently developed with a single-family home and detached rear yard garage. The rectangular-shaped parcel is located on the east side of Broad Street. Adjacent land uses include residential to the north, east and south, while railroad infrastructure is located to the west. The property owners obtained a building permit May 1st, 2020 to replace portions of 4’ high chain link fencing with 6’ high solid-privacy fencing. The submitted site plan (see attached) indicated sections along the north and south property lines would be included in the scope of work as well as sections parallel to Broad Street (matching the front plane of the home). However, the applicant constructed a fence along the north property line that exceeds 6’ in overall height (see attached photos). The constructed fence includes 1’6” of additional trellis material on top of the 6’ solid fencing for an overall height of 7’6” from grade. City of Oshkosh Code Enforcement received a complaint regarding the fence and conducted an initial inspection of the property January 4th, 2021 and issued a correction notice to the property owners the same day. The applicants are now requesting a variance to permit fencing to be 7’6” in overall height along the north and south lot lines (see submitted application). The applicants communicated to staff the higher fence is needed for privacy and security because neighboring properties are committing alcohol and drug Board of Appeals Minutes 2 February 10, 2021 offenses. They also communicated the fence is needed as individuals are trespassing on their property. If the fence height is not approved the owners will continue to have to deal with all of these issues according to the petitioners. The applicants have demonstrated by-right permitting can be achieved with fencing meeting local ordinance standards as they submitted plans complying with requirements and a building permit was issued. The decision to construct the additional fence height is personal preference and a self- created hardship. Additionally, Community Development contacted the Police Department to obtain police reports or any supporting data to document the communicated history of drug, alcohol and trespassing at the property. The Police Department responded they ran reports back to January 1st, 2020 and no drug- related calls associated with the area occurred. Apparently the applicants did find some discarded syringes at one point, however. Therefore there are no unique property circumstances creating justifiable hardship and complying with restrictions would not prevent the owners from using the property in a permitted manner. The property owner at 1302 Broad Street (Patrick Colburn) telephoned Community Development February 1, 2021 and indicated he is not in support of the request and feels it would be detrimental to the neighborhood if the variance was granted. Conversely, the petitioner has submitted documentation attesting to support of the variance from various neighbors (see attached). Overall, granting the variance would create harm to the public interest in this instance as the intent of the ordinance would be undermined and create opportunities for other variance requests of similar nature. Additionally, the site would create an outlier in the neighborhood aesthetically for fence height and cause a negative visual impact. Based on the information provided within this report, denial of the variance request is recommended. Ms. Diener stated she is homeowner of 1316 Broad Street and would like to tell the board when Mr. Muehrer said there was a police report and nothing was done. She’s been in contact with Chief Smith and the captain of the police department and they are aware of the narcotics. Drug trafficking has been occurring and that’s one of the reasons why the fence was put up. Trespassers are going through yards to do drugs and she’s just looking for the fence to be a little higher for safety and security. She stated she knows it won’t fit in there but other people are adding trellises to their fence higher and it’s one thing if she can do it then we can all do it. She’s just looking safety. She also put signs up in the yard and trespassers still go through. Mr. Muehrer shared the new photos Ms. Diener brought in the day of the hearing of her fence; the vehicles in the neighbors drive way; and of other fences. Mr. Krasinewski asked if the Board had any questions. Ms. Hentz asked staff if the original request for a building permit made any mention for the need of anything higher than the allowed height because of any drug, alcohol or trespassing problems. Mr. Muehrer replied negatively. Ms. Hentz asked when the work was completed, did the applicants notify the city and was a final inspection performed. Mr. Zarate stated a final inspection was not requested nor performed. Ms. Hentz asked a follow-up question on clarifying how the inspection process works with staff. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 February 10, 2021 Mr. Zarate replied staff waits for a call from the applicant and then staff completes the inspection after an appointment is made with the property owner. Ms. Hentz asked the applicants during the building process when the additional fencing was added. Ms. Diener replied October. Ms. Hentz stated she is confused as to how the additional trellis fencing helps prevent anyone from trespassing or completing drug or alcohol offenses from occurring because the existing fencing appears to be 4’ high chain link fence. Ms. Diener replied the fence they want will close off the front yard and will match the other fencing around the house so the 4’ high fence will be removed. Ms. Hentz asked if the applicant has shared any recordings with the police department of the offenses that have been going on. Ms. Diener replied pictures and license plates have been shared. Mr. Kottke asked how does drug and alcohol use affect the property and create a hardship for the applicant. Ms. Diener replied once she put up the fence she has now all the problems have been rectified. Mr. Kottke asked how the additional 1’6” of trellis provides more security. Ms. Diener replied it helps a lot. Mr. Kottke asked are there any other fences in the area that are similar to the proposed fence. Ms. Diener replied and described one property nearby which she has a picture of. She also stated there’s a lot more around the city with a trellis on it. A lot of people signed in agreement of her request and they wished they didn’t have to sign for me. They’re putting trellises up so they can grow things. Mr. Kottke said no further questions. Ms. Schmitz stated she doesn’t understand why the trellis part is needed and the 6’ high fence will keep people out. Ms. Diener replied people climb a 6’ fence and people today do not respect other people’s property. Mr. Kottke replied trespassing is an issue for the local police department. Ms. Diener replied affirmatively and added the poles will be cut down to match the height of the trellis. Ms. Hentz said the fence is not finished yet and asked what the intent for the fence is for the overall yard. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 February 10, 2021 Ms. Diener replied everything will match on all sides for fence height when completed. Ms. Hentz motioned to approve the variance as requested. Seconded by Mr. Krasniewski Mr. Kottke replied the board should deny this variance request. It’s not an appropriate request being made. At this point of time there’s no undue hardship and the matters should be directed to the police department. Ms. Hentz concurred there’s no hardship and the matters should be addressed with the police. Ms. Schmitz replied she will also vote for denial and agree with Mr. Kottke’s and Ms. Hentz’s assessments. Mr. Krasniewski stated this request is beyond the scope of the ordinance and a 6’ high fence is sufficient. Denied 0-4 Findings of facts: Board finds the increased height of the fence as proposed is a self-imposed hardship and the applicant needs to follow codes. Mr. Muehrer advised board members the virtual attendance will be continuing through at least April. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. (Krasniewski/Hentz). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Zoning Administrator