HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 2006 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney and Vice Chairman Larry Lang EXCUSED: Moss Ruedinger, and Edward Wilusz and Chairman Cheryl
Hentz STAFF: David Buck, Associate Planner, and Patty LaCombe, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Lang. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present.
Motion by Mr. Cornell for approval of the December 14, 2005 meeting minutes, Seconded by Mr. Carpenter. Motion carried 4-0. I: 2323 JEFFERSON STREET Showcase Custom Homes, Inc., applicant
and owner, request a variance to divide an existing lot creating two lots with substandard frontage/lot width of approximately 49.9 feet each. Section 30-17 (B)(1)(a) of the Oshkosh
Municipal Code: R-1 Single Family Residence District requires all lots within said district to have a minimum frontage/lot width of 60 feet Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around
colored pictures. Mr. Buck also stated the subject property has 99.92 feet of frontage and contains a single family home that is orientated to the North of the lot. The petitioner is
requesting the variance to divide it into two lots; one lot containing the existing home and allowing the other lot to be developed into a single family home site. The lot width, when
split, would be less than required by code but will be consistent with other parcels in the area. Mr. Lang asked staff if the vacant lot is the fenced area on the picture. Mr. Buck stated
that is was. Mr. Lang then asked staff where would the 49.96 feet be located on the property. Mr. Buck stated to the South of the garage. Mr. Cornell motioned to approve the item with
staff’s recommendations, seconded by Mr. Penney. Mr. Lang opened the item for discussion. Jerry Mathusek, Owner, 2755 Algoma Blvd. Mr. Mathusek stated they took the property in trade
from another property in the area. When he received the property a survey was done and it was known at that time the garage would have to be moved or razed. He has built other homes
in that that area on 50 ft. wide lots. The property was purchased with confidence that they could split the lot and there would be no adverse effects.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2-February 8, 2006 Mr. Penney asked if the driveway is right along where the lot line would be for the second lot and also asked if the fence would be the borderline
of the split. Mr. Mathusek stated that if they move the garage the existing driveway would remain right where it is and a new driveway would be installed for the new parcel, assuming
the variance were passed. Mr. Penney asked if there were an offset problem on the driveway, it would be quite tight to the second lot. Mr. Buck stated the driveway is required to have
a 6-inch setback whereas the garage is a 2.5-ft. setback. Mr. Mathusek stated the home they are planning on building is going to be a ranch home with an attached 2 car garage so the
new driveway will be 8-10 ft. off the lot line. Mr. Lang asked if the existing garage is taken down, would the existing driveway be grandfathered in. Mr. Buck stated the driveway would
be grandfathered in, however, the new garage that would be built would have to comply with the code. Mr. Cornell asked if the specifics of the garage were that of the Inspection Services
not that of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Buck stated that is covered under the general building and zoning code regulations, which would still have to be followed. Frank Benson, Neighbor,
2313 Jefferson St. Mr. Benson stated a new house neighboring him would increase the property value of his home. His concern is that if the new house is built 5 ft. from the property
line, he could possibly have someone looking out the window onto his patio. Mr. Carpenter asked what the distance is from his patio to the lot line. Mr. Benson stated the thought it
was between 6 inches and 2 ft. Mr. Buck stated 2ft. is code. Mr. Carpenter then asked Mr. Benson if there was room for a fence or some sort of landscaping. Mr. Benson stated there was
already a chain link fence there. Mr. Penney stated the chain link fence could be removed. Mr. Benson stated he would have to put up another fence. Mr. Buck stated other options were
to hedgerow in that spot. Mr. Penney stated he wanted to make an amendment to the original motion: 1. The driveway be relocated or adjusted to meet the regulations of the zoning code.
Mr. Cornell seconded the amendment to the original motion, the amendment carried 4-0. Mr. Lang stated he sketched out a diagram of what happens on a lot that size when we have 25 ft.
front yard setback and two 5 ft. side setbacks and if a garage is going to be put on the lot, the lot will become smaller. He wouldn’t want someone to revisit this issue with someone
coming along asking for yet another variance saying that 25 ft is too much of a setback. If this variance is granted it will comply with existing codes and he hoped there would be no
further requests for special placement. 50 ft. lots, even if the lots are 130 ft deep, has limited amount of usable space and will get to be a bit tight. Mr. Buck stated the front setback
is 25 ft. or the average of the two adjacent structures.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3-February 8, 2006 Mr. Lang stated a roll call was needed for the original motion with amendment, roll call was taken, motion carried 4-0. Finding of Facts:
Mr. Carpenter stated that by dividing the lot in half it would be consistent with the other lots in the area. Mr. Penney stated it is somewhat of an unusual circumstance relative to
the standard code, consideration of the rest of the neighborhood basically equals those same size lots; it doesn’t make or add any adverse impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Penney stated
adding an extra home on the lot will increase the taxes in the neighborhood. DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS PROCEDURES No discussion was held at this time. There being no further
business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 3:58 p.m. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted, David Buck Associate Planner DB/pal