HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 26, 2003 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, Edward Wilusz EXCUSED: Don Krueger, John Schorse STAFF: Darryn Burich,
Principal Planner; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of March
12, 2003 were approved as mailed. (Ameringer /Feavel) Unanimous. I: 1540 S. KOELLER STREET Ann Massey representative for Appleton Sign Company, applicant, and Oshkosh Koeller LLC, owner,
are requesting a variance to construct a 4th projecting sign on a mansard style roof, whereas Section 30-37(F)(2)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance permits one projecting sign
on each premise. It was noted that the item was withdrawn on March 25, 2003 at the request of Christina Schilling, representative for Oshkosh Koeller LLC, owner. II: 2250 HICKORY COURT
Gary L. Galica, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a 6’ tall solid fence within the 25’ front yard setback area, whereas Section 30-35(E)(2) of the City of Oshkosh
Zoning Ordinance permits fences less than 4’ tall in the required front yard area. Darryn Burich introduced the item. Gary Galica, 2250 Hickory Court, said he has a corner lot on a dead
end street and the proposed fence would be of quality construction with a 20’ setback from the road. He said he previously had a 4’ fence and his 2 Siberian Husky dogs had jumped over
the fence. Mr. Galica stated that the neighbors to the south also have dogs and he has a concern for the safety of his animals. The applicant said that the alternate solution recommended
by staff would create a 4’ wide awkward tunnel. Mr. Galica further noted that there has been no opposition from the neighbors. Mr. Ameringer questioned if the nature of the variance
request is the same as stated in the staff report, noting the application requests a 5’ variance to put up a fence and the staff report sites a variance to construct a 6’ tall solid
fence within the 25’ front yard setback. Mr. Burich explained that the applicant is requesting to put the 6’ tall fence 20’ from the property line. So in essence the applicant is requesting
an additional 5’. There was further discussion on the proposed location of the fence and Mr. Burich asked if there was any intent to park vehicles, boats, utility vehicles, etc. in the
requested area. Mr. Galica responded no. He added that the fence would enclose his back yard and the animals would have the run of the entire area.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -March 26, 2003 Vice Chairperson Hentz asked the applicant what he would do in regard to the height of the fence if the variance request is not approved.
Mr. Galica answered he would still construct a 6’ tall fence. During board discussion Vice Chairperson Hentz said, in her opinion, because the dogs will have the use of the entire back
yard she could not support the variance request. Motion by Ameringer to approve a variance request to construct a 6’ tall solid fence within the 25’ front yard setback area. Seconded
by Hentz. Motion denied 1-4. Aye; Ameringer. Nay; Feavel, Hentz, Kluessendorf, Wilusz. III: 2104 HICKORY LANE Carol Miller, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to allow for
a principal structure to have a substandard shore yard setback of 55.74”, whereas Section 30-39 of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 73.09’ shore yard setback. Darryn Burich
introduced the item. Carol Miller, 2104 Hickory Lane, introduced herself. During board discussion Mr. Mr. Ameringer stated in his opinion the variance request meets all the criteria
for approval noting the modest addition would not alter the configuration of the neighborhood. Vice Chairperson Hentz said the hardship is not self created and it is the least variance
necessary. Motion by Feavel to approve a variance request to allow for a principal structure to have a substandard shore yard setback of 55.74’. Seconded by Ameringer. Motion approved
5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the hardship is not self created, the variance isthe least possible needed to remove any hardship, and granting of the variance
would not have an adverse impact on neighboring properties. OTHER BUSINESS: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich
Principal Planner DB/mld