HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2004 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, John Schorse, EXCUSED: Ed Wilusz STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Mary
Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schorse. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Ms. Hentz asked for a correction to the minutes
of December 23, 2003. She requested the minutes to reflect that Chairman Schorse asked Ms. Hentz to ask for public comment to which she responded that it was the Chairman’s job, and
instead the Board moved into the rest of the agenda thereby giving the public an opportunity to comment as the item was called. There was a voice vote of unanimous approval. I: 459 N.
WASHBURN STREET Fox Valley LP, applicant, and Art Pommerening, owner, are requesting a variance to place a structure with a 0 foot side yard setback, whereas Section 30-34(D)(4)(b) of
the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires structures be placed a minimum of 15 feet side yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos. Mike Tighe, President
and owner of Fox Valley LP, explained that the 1000 gallon propane tank is a portable filling station used to fill propane cylinders from 5 pounds to 100 pounds, and he expressed their
desire to also establish a retail store on site to sell propane products. He added that they presently have an existing plant in Fond du Lac, WI. and further explained that the owner
of the property, Art Pommerening, would only allow them to locate the tank at the requested location on the subject site. Mr. Tighe stated that if this proposal did not work they would
pursue other avenues in Oshkosh. He said they hope to eventually start a major plant in the area, where there would be a 30,000 gallon tank to accommodate home heating, portable tank
filling, and RV tank filling. Mr. Lang arrived at this time. Chairman Schorse inquired about the size of the unit. Mr. Tighe responded that the unit size is 22’x 5’, and with the barriers
installed it would would be about 28’ x 7’. He added it would be similar to what is located at the U-Haul site on Ohio Street. Ms. Hentz asked why Mr. Pommerening would not allow the
tank to be placed elsewhere on the property and if there were other areas on the property where the tank could be located without the need for a variance.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -January 14, 2004 Mr. Tighe responded that the reasons that he was aware of in regard to placement of the tank, were Mr. Pommerening’s concerns with snow
plowing issues and with the proposal for a future road in the area. He said the opportunity of being able to view the tank from the tenant space would be beneficial for customer service
and he noted that there are other businesses in the immediate area, which dictate where the tank can be placed. He stated that they are limited as to the location of the tank due to
possible infringement of the other businesses. Chairman Schorse noted that the tank would be tucked in behind the office building. Mr. Tucker explained that open storage placements on
site utility requirements in the Highway 41 Corridor Overlay permit storage however, they must be sufficiently screened by means of a solid wood fence. He said the requested structure
could also fall into the line of accessory structures, which would require the unit to be located behind behind the building, but with the regulatory floodplain map that applies currently,
the tank may not meet the building code required setbacks from the principal building. Ms. Hentz noted that there were not many options and asked the applicant if he had concerns with
the condition that staff recommended. Mr. Tighe answered that he was agreeable to the recommended condition. Mr. Lang questioned the location of the subject site relative to the strip
mall. Mr. Tighe explained that they would be part of the strip mall. There was discussion on the placement of fencing. Mr. Tighe explained that the tank is portable and is only constrained
by the fact that it operates on electricity. Ray LaBatte identified himself as being the manager of Fox Valley LP and said he was available to answer questions. During board discussion
Mr. Lang cited verbiage from Article VII from the newly adopted Procedures and Regulations for the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals. He stated that, in his opinion, the guides and standards
for a variance as stated in the manual have not been met to warrant approval of the variance, there is no justification for the variance, and it does not qualify for approval. Mr. Feavel
said he agreed with Mr. Lang and noted that permits have not yet been filed for and he added that he had reservations about supporting the variance request without an opinion from the
Fire Department. Chairman Schorse said that it is his understanding that the applicant needs the variance before they can proceed with permits and the regulations would ensue. Mr. Tucker
commented that the Inspections Department along with the owner of the subject property are in the process of preparing a “no build easement”, which would include a 25’ strip along the
property line to the south which restricts development onto that property. He further explained that it was necessary to see if a variance was obtained before they continued with the
“no build easement”. Mr. Tucker said the tank would not be placed without the easement and he noted that that he has discussed this request with Building Inspector Brian Noe and Greg
Piper of the Fire Department. Ms. Hentz commented that according to staff there is no other place for the tank to be located on the property considering the floodplain issue, etc., but
she believes that both Mr. Lang and Mr. Feavel made some good points. She said she would have liked the opportunity to speak with Mr. Pommerening as to why he is opposed to locating
it elsewhere on the property and stated she would not support the variance request without more information from the owner of the property. Ms. Hentz said she appreciated the fact that
the life saving measures were taken into account and addressed before the tank is placed. She asked Staff if there were any other options for placing the tank
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -January 14, 2004 without the benefit of a variance and without adversely affecting neighboring properties. Mr. Tucker stated that Mr. Pommerening owns the
property to the south and to the west and stated that there could potentially be other options available. Mr. Feavel mentioned the fact that the applicant stated they were looking at
other properties if the variance was not approved. Mr. Cornell stated he concurred with Mr. Feavel and agreed with Mr. Lang’s statements relative to the guidelines. He said in his opinion
there are other options and considering the fact of some of the comments made by Mr. Tighe he would not support the variance request. Motion by Hentz to approve a variance to place a
structure with a 0 foot side yard setback. Seconded by Lang. 1-4. Motion denied. Aye; Schorse. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Feavel asked for it to be recorded that he supported the approval of
the variance at the December 23, 2003 meeting for 1000-1240 Cumberland Trail. Mr. Lang questioned the the status on the Board’s request for Parliamentary Rules that were to be provided
by City Attorney Warren Kraft. Mr. Tucker explained that Attorney Kraft indicated that there was a delay due to his schedule and they were welcome to contact Attorney Kraft with any
questions. Both Ms. Hentz and Mr. Lang expressed their disappointment in the fact that the Board has not yet received the information that was promised to them. Ms. Hentz said she was
under the impression the material only had to be photocopied and then distributed. She said she understands it is not a priority item, but it is necessary for the Board to receive the
information. Mr. Lang said he would be more comfortable with a set of rules and did not think it would be appropriate to contact Attorney Kraft and utilize his valuable time every time
he has a question. Mr. Lang stated that the guidelines are necessary to continue to function on the Board and he would appreciate a copy before the next meeting. Mr. Tucker said he would
relay the Board’s Board’s concerns to Attorney Kraft. Mr. Tucker announced that Mrs. Degner was attending her last meeting and thanked her for her service. There being no further business,
the meeting adjourned at 3:55. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld