Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes (6/7/1989) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PAGE THREE JUNE 7, 1989 Motion by Hintz to approve a utility storage structure having an area of 418 sq. ft. Seconded by Krueger. Motion denied 2-3 (Aye: McGee, Slover; Nay: Hintz, Ruhl, Krueger). Regarding the findings of fact, Ms. Hintz stated th~ bardship is self- created. There are Qtber alter-nat:ive~... .., Tbi~ would pea blight on the neighborhood with this struct:ure 'ris"J.<rig -'ui3'c-ouf'of'€ne'iiiiddle of the parking lot. It would appear that expediency is behind this request. The structure is four times the size that the OrclinaJ;1c:::e allows and we are to treat this request as if the struct.ure did 'not. exist. 2010 WASHBURN ROAD, - Ell.aJ;1Wc>gdG.a1l1.a~.a,+y Association, owner; Dale Harrmann and Lyle Beck, applicants The applicants are requesting a variance to install a 6',fence with a 0' front yard setback; whereas section 30-26(0) (1) (b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 30' minimum front yard setback and section 30-29(E) (1) states that fences and h.adges less than 4' high may be located within the required front yard setback. IV. In answering questions from the Board, Mr. Harrmann and Mr. Beck explained the following: If they have to replace the fence 70 graves would be on the wrong side of the fence. If they knew tnat this situation would have been created t:hey would not have allowed the County to widen the road and remove the previously existing hedge. The County constructed the fence in its present location. City staff and County staff told them the fenc~ lOCation was ok at the time it was constructed. Mr. Roskom stated these.are unique circumstances. There are plots laid out which have b.aenther-.a .fo~lUCl:ny years. The street was widened and the setback has to be adjusted. ' Motion by Ruhl to approve a variance to install a 6' fence with a 0' front yard setback. Seconded by Krueger. Motion carried 5-0. Regarding the findings of fact, Ms. Hintz stated the hardship was not self-created. Mr. McGee stated the unique circumstance is that with a cemetery the use of the property has no setback. The principal use is in the ground and there is no setback for that use. A requirement for ,a fence around that use is not appropriate and the Ordinance is creating a hardship. f;;) 2130 S, WASHBURN STREET - C. V. Spickler, owner; ~ Barr-y R. Lancette, agent The applicant is requesting a variance to install a 6' fence having a 0' front yard setback; whereas Section 30-26(0) (1) (b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 30' minimum front yard setback and section 30-29(E) (1) states that fences and hedges less than 4 ft. high may be located within the required front yard setback. In answering questions from the Board, Mr. Lancette explained the following: They want the area to look nice and have a straight fence line with their neighbors. Their hardship is caused by vandalism. A 4' fence is not adequate for security. There is an embankment between their property and the neighbors and they need an area for snow removal. The RVs are 30-40' in length and use a lot of parking space. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PAGE FOUR JUNE 7, 1989 If this variance was granted they would not seek another varianc~ for parking in the front yard setback. There would be nothing detrimental about the looks of the proposed fence. Incoming RVs have a hard time turning around in the lot with the RVs parked near the building. They would like to use the black top area that already exists for additional parking space and they would have more room for better traffic flow. Their lot is much lower than the cemetery lot and their visibility is inhibited in that way. He feels a jagged fence line from the cemetery to their property would be an eyesore. Mr. McGee stated if the property to the south wanted to put in a fence and continue that line there would be a row of fences in inappropriate locations. Mr. Lancette felt the hardship is caused by the zoning of this property. He stated he would not put any signage on the fence. Mr. McGee stated they do not have jurisdiction to alter the Zoning Ordinance and they have to consider if special circumstances exist in each situation. Motion by Hintz to approve a variance to install a 6' fenc:e having a 0 ft. frQnt yard setback. Seconded by Krueger. Motion denied 2-3 (Aye: Hintz, Slover; Nay: Ruhl, Krueger, McGee). Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Krueger stated the applicant is asking for much more than he needs for a variance. There is no hardship. Mr. McGee stated he has no need to protect what is within the 30' setback as that area must be devoted to open space per Ordinance requirements. There is no hardship and he has alternatives that are viable. Building a 6' fence at the setback provides him with security for his commercial activity. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. ~:J~ted' Bruc~. '~~skom Principal Planner BAR/ddw