Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 27, 2005 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Larry Lang and Cheryl Hentz, Chairperson EXCUSED: Edward Wilusz STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner, Patty LaCombe, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Motion by Cornell for approval of the April 13, 2005 minutes as mailed, seconded by Carpenter. Unanimous. I: 525 W. 20TH AVENUE Ruth Elliot, Wittman Regional Airport Manager, applicant, Winnebago County, owner, request variances to install an eight (8) foot tall fence with a one (1) foot setback at various locations, and a perimeter road with varying substandard setbacks. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and passed around photos of the sites. He explained this is a complicated issue spread across a very large site, and therefore the presentation will relate to the entire site, starting at the east, moving south, and finishing up at the west side of the airport. Mr. Tucker also explained the perimeter road is currently outside the fence by Perimeter Road, but will be moved inside the fence. Mr. Carpenter questioned staff whether the overpass was still located along that road. Mr. Tucker stated it was in fact removed and the right away was never vacated or moved back to a 66 ft. width, the petitioner is proposing to extend the access road down along that right a way line, which is about 75 ft. back from the pavement of Hughes Street in this area. Mr. Tucker continued there is a residence located further south on Hughes Street and to continue the connection of the perimeter road as desired, the road and fencing are planned to project into the transitional setback area. Mr. Tucker further stated it is his understanding the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) requires 8 foot tall fencing. The existing 4 ft tall fence along the south and west sides of the property do not meet the safety and enclosure requirements of the FAA. He also indicated the petitioner desires to avoid the institutional look of of a barbed wire fencing, so they negotiated approval of 8 ft. tall chain link fencing with airport officials. Ruth Elliot, Wittman Regional Airport Director, introduced herself, for any questions. Mr. Cornell commented to Ms. Elliot that the County of Winnebago Zoning has approved the requested 1ft. setback, it’s up to the City of Oshkosh’s Board of Zoning to approve the city’s portion. Ms. Elliot replied yes. Mr. Lang questioned the proposed areas will be fenced this year. Ms. Elliot stated both the FAA and TSA (Transportation Security Administration) mandate the airport to have the entire airport enclosed in an 8 ft. fence. Mr. Lang then asked who would have zoning authority at the property if the City is on one side and the county is on the other. Mr. Tucker stated the property line that separates the airport to that residence is the City of Oshkosh/Town of Algoma separation line, the County has already approved the 8 ft. fence where they have jurisdiction over the Town of Algoma. Board of Appeals Minutes -2-April 27, 2005 Mr. Lang asked Ms. Elliot how they propose to maintain a 1 ft. setback. Ms. Elliot replied they would like to have a zero ft. setback, but they were asking for a 1 ft. setback. Mr. Tucker stated in a conversation with Ms. Elliot that she stated having a 1 ft. setback would allow them to put peagravel or some other treatment down to help maintain the overgrowth of materials and garbage. Mr. Lang then stated over time weed barriers do eventually give up. Mr. Tucker stated they have not had any problems in the past and the only area of new fence in a new setback is along the railroad tracks and along where the viaduct was on Hughes St., it will be 70 ft from the paved area of the road. Ms. Elliot stated the perimeter road wasn’t a through road, when the viaduct was taken down people started using this road as a thoroughfare. Mr. Cornell asked if the County or City would deny the variances, how would that effect airport funding or anything else from the FAA, or the current operational procedures? Ms. Elliot stated that in the future years they would probably loose funding or be found in non-compliance. Ms. Hentz stated the new fencing on the perimeter could have an adverse impact on the neighboring property and wanted to know if they have given that any thoughts. Ms. Elliot stated the county would probably have to trim some of the vegetation, putting the road inside the fenced in area. Janelle Cooper, 2819 Hughes St., stated she is in support of the fence and the perimeter road needs to be closed to the public, not only a danger to cars but also a speedway from the local companies in the area. She further stated there is approximately an 8 ft. ditch with a drainage pipe with standing and flowing water, keeping the fence at the current fence line would help keep pets from falling in. Ms. Hentz asked Ms. Elliot if they have a problem placing the fence on the existing fence line, Ms. Elliot stated they did not have a problem with leaving the fence at the existing fence line, line, the road would have to be moved but the vegetation would remain. Ms. Hentz stated she feels a condition be added, the fence on the north side, along 2819 Hughes St. be placed on the existing fence line. Motion by Lang to approve a variance to install an eight (8) foot tall fence with a one (1) foot setback at various locations, and a perimeter road with varying substandard setbacks, with the following condition: 1. The new fence that abuts the property of 2819 Hughes St. be placed on the current fence line, with the existing vegetation maintained along the north property line, and the perimeter road shall placed north of the vegetation area. Seconded by Mr. Cornell, motion carried 4-0. Finding of Fact: Ms. Hentz stated we have alleviated the counties situation with respect to the FAA, preserved property values for the residents of 2819 Hughes St., and provided consistency with the fence the same height all the way around the property. Board of Appeals Minutes -3-April 27, 2005 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tucker distributed an e-mail sent by Warren Kraft discussing the “Other Business” as listed as an item on the Board of Appeals agenda. Discussion took place and the future agendas will reflect the changes. It was noted an item would be put on the agenda for future meetings, to discuss “Board of Appeals procedures”. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:30 pm Cornell/Wilusz. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted, MATT TUCKER Associate Planner MWT/pal