HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 January 10, 2007 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JANUARY 10, 2007 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Larry Lang, Moss Ruedinger, Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Edward
Wilusz, Dennis Penney STAFF: David Buck, Principal Planner; Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary; Allyn Dannhoff, Chief Building
Inspector The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of November 8, 2006 were approved as distributed.
Cornell/Lang 4-0. The minutes of November 22, 2006 were also approved as distributed. Lang/Carpenter 4-0. I. 353 WEST 18TH AVENUE Harry Oestreich-applicant/owner, requests a variance
to reconstruct the front porch with a fourteen foot three inch (14’3”) front yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(e): Additional Standards and Exceptions of the City of Oshkosh
Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of a fifteen (15) foot front yard setback. It should be noted this is the second hearing for this application. The original hearing occurred on October
25, 2006 and was denied 1-4. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and noted that since the last hearing, new gutters have been installed on the non-approved/illegal porch to eliminate pooling
water. This installation occurred without a proper building permit. Mr. Oestreich commented that he thought the gutters were included in the permit issued for the porch and roof. Allyn
Dannhoff, Chief Building Inspector, stated that he would not make an issue of this. Mr. Oestreich stated that he had the contractor present at this hearing that performed the reconstruction
of the porch so he could answer questions from the board regarding this matter. Anthony Schmidt, 2127 Linway Court, Oshkosh, stated that he had drawn up the plans for the porch reconstruction
and brought them to the Inspection Services office for approval. He was told that the plans looked fine and a permit was issued. He said he spoke with Nicole Krahn, Building Inspector,
when the posts and concrete were already in place and she said that everything looked good. She did ask if the reconstructed porch was the same size as the original structure. He told
her he did not know. Ms. Hentz inquired if Ms. Krahn did not tell him at this point that the project was not acceptable. Mr. Schmidt responded that she did not.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 January 10, 2007 Mr. Lang commented that he examined the site this afternoon and had a few questions regarding the sketch of the plans that the contractor
had drawn up. A brief discussion followed regarding items relating to the drawing of the proposed reconstructed porch. Mr. Carpenter inquired if the contractor knew where the original
footings were located for the porch? Mr. Schmidt replied that the cornerstones had been removed prior to construction, but he thought the new porch was almost identical. The original
structure was pulling away from the house so it was hard to tell. Mr. Cornell questioned why the porch was extended beyond the roofline. Mr. Schmidt responded that the package purchased
for the porch came that way. Mr. Lang inquired if this package had certain dimensions and if the columns supporting the roof were moved. Mr. Schmidt replied that the package was created
using computer imaging software at Menards and that the support columns were not moved. Ms. Hentz asked if the Inspection Services office had told them that the porch could not be increased
in size, why was it reconstructed that way. Mr. Oestreich responded that he did not remember asking to have the porch built larger. Mr. Schmidt stated that he did not intend to build
into the setback area. Ms. Hentz asked if Nicole Krahn was available to answer questions regarding this issue since she was the inspector who dealt with Mr. Schmidt on this issue. Mr.
Dannhoff responded that Ms. Krahn was not able to be present for this hearing but he could answer questions relating to this issue. He stated that he issued the original permit from
the drawing submitted by the contractor. The project was to replace the original porch and there was no discussion to enlarge it at that time. If that had been communicated at the time
the permit was issued, they would have been required to submit a scaled site plan and have a zoning review before obtaining the permit. Mr. Carpenter asked if there was a problem with
the integrity of of the deck and if the base of the original porch extended out from the roof. Mr. Dannhoff responded that he could not comment on the integrity of the deck as he did
not inspect it and that the original porch may have flared out on the bottom, however, that would be considered ornamental projection which is allowed. The decking is now what extends
out and the floor area is not considered ornamental. Ms. Hentz asked if the building inspector would inspect a project midway through construction. Mr. Dannhoff responded that there
is a checklist that designates at what point to call for inspection and it is the responsibility of the contractor to do so. If the contractor does not hear from the Inspections office
within 48 hours of the call, it is permissible to proceed.
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 January 10, 2007 Ms. Hentz requested that the original drawing of the proposed reconstructed porch be reviewed. Mr. Buck retrieved the original document from
Inspection Services and the board reviewed it. Mr. Cornell asked if the porch could be fixed to be code compliant. Mr. Dannhoff replied that it could. Mr. Cornell inquired if it would
be possible to remove the extension that was encroaching into the setback area and move the steps back. Mr. Schmidt responded that it would be possible, but would be a major expense
as the support posts are buried four feet into the ground and attached to the deck. He further stated that he was not told that the porch was noncompliant until the work was completed.
A brief discussion followed regarding when the contractor was notified that the porch was noncompliant. There appeared to be some discrepancy between the contractor and Inspection Services
as to when this notification occurred. Mr. Lang stated that it was apparent from the photos that the porch had increased in size and the building permit issued did not reflect this change.
Mr. Carpenter commented that he had also reviewed the subject site and he did not have a problem with the reconstructed porch as is. It appeared to be an improvement to the property.
Mr. Cornell stated that he did not feel the appearance was the issue. The fact is that it is not a replacement of the original structure as was approved with the permit and although
it may involve additional expense, the situation is correctible. Mr. Lang agreed and further commented that it is an owner created hardship. Motion by Lang to approve the request for
a variance to reconstruct the front porch with a fourteen foot three inch front yard setback. Seconded by Cornell. Motion denied 1-3. Ayes-Carpenter. Nays-Cornell/Lang/Hentz OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Carpenter asked about an article he noticed in the newspaper regarding a setback issue involving Bergstrom’s and the Plan Commission. He was curious about the issue as Bergstrom’s
had come up at a previous hearing for allegedly parking cars in the setback area. Mr. Buck replied that the issue with the Plan Commission involved display pods that they wished to place
in the setback area. This issue involves a Planned Development area that has a special zoning overlay district which could permit exceptions to the code as a base standard modification
if deemed appropriate. This is different than the issues heard by the Board of Appeals since a base standard modification in a Planned Development area would not require them to apply
for a variance. At this time, the display pods have been removed from the site plan until further review of the site can be completed.
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 January 10, 2007 Ms. Hentz commented that she felt the item reviewed today seemed to be created by a misunderstanding between the contractor and the Inspection
Services division. She questioned if the staff does a sufficient job explaining issues when the permit is obtained to avoid these situations. Mr. Buck responded that the inspectors do
the best they can to explain the criteria when the permit is issued. The level of understanding of building issues that the person obtaining the permit has is not always evident. There
being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:47 pm. Lang/Cornell 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator