HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2002 PRESENT: Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, John Schorse, Ed Wilusz EXCUSED: Carl Ameringer, Don Krueger STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate 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 September 25, 2002 were
approved as mailed. (Schorse/Kluessendorf) I: 344 SARATOGA AVENUE Richard Meyers, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct an off-street parking area that will have
a 4’ rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-36(C)(5)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires off-street parking areas have a 7.5’ side yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced
the item and circulated pictures. Richard Meyers, 344 Saratoga Avenue, said he has invested a substantial amount of money in the subject property including replacing two bathrooms, replumbing
of the house, installing a new furnace and air conditioning unit, painting and landscaping. Mr. Mr. Meyers stated when he purchased the property he knew the garage was to be demolished,
but he had no idea what that financially entailed. He said his desire is to have a 20’ x 40’ parking pad, equipped with grade beam, to provide four parking spaces for the present time,
which would allow for a future code compliant garage. Mr. Meyers said he would comply with the recommended condition that the area be screened by a 4-seasons hedge and added, in his
opinion, it would be a great improvement to the present parking situation. Mr. Kluessendorf questioned if there was enough entrance, egress, and turn around space between the house and
the slab. Mr. Meyers responded there would be enough room with the approval of the variance request for the 4’ rear yard setback, because this would allow for about 30’ between the house
and the slab. He commented that having to abide with the required 25’ rear yard setback is part of his hardship because of the difficulty there would be in the maneuvering area. During
board discussion it was noted the two family use of the subject property is legal nonconforming, since the lot is substandard. Motion by Schorse to approve a variance request to construct
an off-street parking area that will have a 4’ rear yard setback, with the following condition: 1) The off-street parking area be screened from the adjacent properties by a 4-seasons
hedge. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -October 9, 2002 Finding of the fact: It was concluded that there were not a lot of options, it would be a great improvement, there would be no adverse impact
on neighboring properties, and the substandard lot was not self-created. II: 1215 W. NEW YORK AVENUE Thomas Edwards, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to expand the width
of an existing driveway by 3’, which will result in the driveway being wider than the garage, whereas Section 30-36(C)(5) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires driveways to
be no wider than the garage. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. Thomas Edwards, N3383 Cty Hwy MM, Wautoma, Wisconsin, presented pictures of the driveway denoting the staggered
parking, which is currently necessary. He said he was pleased with staff’s support of his request for the expansion of the driveway, however he had a concern with the condition, which
states that the driveway be paved within eighteen months because that would be creating a hardship hardship for him. Mr. Edwards said he could appreciate the fact that a paved driveway
looks better, however because it is not a Zoning Ordinance requirement, in his opinion, he should not be required to have the added expense and in addition, Mr. Edwards noted that in
the immediate vicinity of the subject property there are 12 existing gravel driveways. He stated he could support the notion if everyone was required to do the same, but feels that he
is being singled out because of his desire to expand the driveway. Mr. Tucker explained that the Ordinance was amended in 1987 to require driveways to be paved, it was again altered
in 1996 to require that if a driveway has been expanded by 50% in length, width, or surface area, the driveway is to be paved. He said this is to effectively create a better environment.
It would reduce dust and curtail the problem of material spilling out of the driveway onto sidewalks and roadways. Mr. Tucker stated that it is reasonable, in his opinion, if granting
the variance to ask that the driveway also be paved. He further explained that there is an allowance of eighteen months, for completion, from the time the permit is issued. He also added
that staff is sensitive to the fact that paving can not be completed in Wisconsin’s winter season and explained the procedures for enforcement. Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that in
hearing the variance request, they must base their decision on the facts as they relate to the subject property only. Mr. Edwards said that he personally attends to the maintenance issues
of the rental property. He noted there has been some spill out of the gravel in the driveway, due to the recent rain, however he strongly feels he can maintain the gravel driveway in
such a way that it will not create a problem. Mr. Edwards stated that he purchased the property about 1 year ago and said there are interior improvements which need to be addressed and
stated the fact that he is not in a financial position to currently pave the driveway. Mr. Kluessendorf questioned questioned if the minimal expansion would actually be useful. There
was further discussion on the size of the expansion. Mr. Edwards said he was trying to avoid citations from the building inspector and found that the 3’ expansion would be practical.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -October 9, 2002 There was further discussion on the possibility of extending the time period of eighteen months to twenty-four months, the possibility of
establishing a firm completion date, and the possibility of extensions being granted for the completion of the paved driveway. It was noted that the cost for concrete paving would be
$2,000.00 to $3,000.00 and the cost for asphalt would be around $1,000.00. Mr. Edwards again reiterated the fact that under the City Ordinance he is not required to pave the driveway
and, in his opinion, the policy is now being stretched. Mr. Tucker noted that there has been a request to alter the rules to expand a driveway wider than the garage so, as a give and
take, staff has recommended approval for the driveway expansion with the condition that the driveway be paved. Discussion continued on the parking situation, noting that City Code requires
2 parking spaces for a single family and the fact that single stacked parking is consistent with enforcement. Mr. Edwards stated that the present tenants have 3 vehicles and it is an
issue of convenience to not have to move the cars in and out of the driveway. He stated if the Board is considering an extension on the time frame, for the paving to be completed, he
would like to establish a firm date and added he would be comfortable with the end of August 2005. Discussion continued on the available options for the motion. Roger Rose, 1302 W. New
York Avenue, expressed his disapproval of the variance request and added that if it were approved he would like for the driveway to be paved. During board discussion Mr. Schorse said
this kind of issue has come before the board in the past. He said he would not have a problem with setting a date for the completion of the paving, however he does not like the idea
of manipulating an existing ordinance. He commented that the financial hardship could not be considered. Vice Chairperson Hentz said the applicant is not expanding the driveway by 50%
therefore the ordinance would not apply. She said she agrees with staff’s recommendation that the driveway should be paved and stated she was uncomfortable with extending the time frame
3 years, but she would consider extending the time frame to 24 months. Vice Chairperson Hentz also questioned the possible issues that could arise if the property was sold before the
work was completed. Mr. Kluessendorf stated as long as the applicant could ask for an extension he would concur with Mr. Schorse in the fact that he would not want to extend provisions
in the current ordinance, and questioned the minimal size of the expansion and whether it would suffice in resolving the problem. Mr. Wilusz said he understands the policy but, in his
opinion, it is outside the boundaries of the code. He said he would like to see the item go forward, realizing that the applicant has other home improvements he wants to address, and
the applicant can decide whether he wishes to proceed with the expansion of the paved driveway, or whether he would need to come forward with the plan at a later point in time, when
the finances would be available. Motion by Schorse to expand the width of an existing driveway by 3’, with the following condition: 1) The entire driveway be paved in accordance with
Section 30-36(C)(3)(a)(1) within eighteen months of construction. Seconded by KLuessendorf. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -October 9, 2002 Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the hardship was not self-created, the lot size is unusual, it is the least possible variance
required, and there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties. OTHER BUSINESS: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld