Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES June 8, 2011 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Robert Krasniewski, Dennis Penney, Janet Duellman, Jane Cryan EXCUSED: none STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES BOARD REORGANIZATION Mr. Cornell opened the floor for nominations for Chairperson. Motion by Penney to nominate Mr. Cornell. Seconded by Carpenter. As there were no additional nominations for Chairperson, the floor was closed for nominations. Mr. Cornell accepted the nomination for Chairperson. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Cornell opened the floor for nominations for Vice - Chairperson. Motion by Penney to nominate Mr. Carpenter. Seconded by Cryan. As there were no additional nominations for Vice - Chairperson, the floor was closed for nominations. Mr. Carpenter accepted the nomination for Vice - Chairperson. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Cornell suggested that the discussion of the Board of Appeals Procedures and Regulations be moved to the end of the agenda after the variance hearings were complete. The minutes of May 11, 2011 were approved as presented. (Penney /Carpenter) ITEM L• 1302 BROAD STREET Patrick A. Colburn- applicant /owner, requests the following variance to permit a detached deck in the front yard setback: Board of Appeals Minutes 1 June 8, 2011 Description Code Reference Required Proposed Accessory Structure Location 30 -1 (A)(2) Rear or side yard Front Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The property is located on the northeast corner at the intersection of Broad Street and E. Tennessee Avenue and is zoned R -1 Single Family Residence District. The existing home and detached garage were built in 1953 and the owner is proposing to place a 10'x10' detached deck in the front yard whereas the zoning ordinance requires accessory structures to be located in the rear or side yard. The City of Oshkosh received a complaint regarding the location of the deck this spring which was constructed without a building permit in 2006. A degree of hardship is present in this case as the existing principal structure and garage placements and the limited rear and side yard areas preclude feasible placement alternatives for the improvement within setback. Mr. Muehrer discussed the relocation alternatives which were not ideal or the option of denying the request which would require the structure be entirely removed from the property. Strict adherence to district standards appears to be unnecessarily burdensome in this case and he recommended approval of the variance as requested. Patrick Colburn, 1302 Broad Street, stated that he did not know he needed a building permit at the time the deck was constructed. He further stated that the cost of the materials was only about $120.00 and he was under the impression that there was a set price greater than that to trigger the requirement of obtaining a building permit. He also commented on the limited amount of yard area his home possesses. He questioned if citizens who were not directly notified of the hearing today were allowed to attend as there was one person in the audience who was not on the mailing list. Mr. Cornell responded that anyone can be present for the hearing as it is a public meeting. Mr. Colburn commented that the deck does not block visibility and he located it in the best spot that he could due to the limited area he has on his property. Mr. Penney questioned when the house was purchased. Mr. Colburn replied that he purchased the home in 2003. Mr. Krasniewski inquired how much room there was between the house and garage. Mr. Muehrer responded that there was approximately 17 feet between the structures. Mr. Colburn stated that the deck would not look good placed between the house and garage. Mr. Cornell questioned if the deck structure was able to be moved to a different location. Mr. Colburn replied that it was not attached to anything so it would be movable. Ms. Cryan inquired if the petitioner had applied for a building permit when the deck was constructed, how much would the permit have cost. Mr. Muehrer responded that it would have been $50.00 for a building permit. Mr. Penney questioned if staff would have recommended approval of a variance for this structure if it had not already been constructed. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 June 8, 2011 Mr. Muehrer replied that the request would still have been given a positive recommendation as to move it to another location on the site would still require a variance from the code requirements. Mr. Colburn added that he used to have the deck in another location however it was problematic as it kept blowing over. Mr. Cornell commented that he felt these types of variance requests create an embarrassing situation for the city since the deck was constructed without a building permit. Wayne Edge, 1234 Broad Street, stated that the petitioner knew what size the lot was when he purchased the home and he felt the detached deck was a luxury item not a necessity. He did not feel the structure looked appropriate two feet off the sidewalk and disrupts the aesthetic look of the neighborhood. He further stated that the deck could be relocated to a different area on the property. Mr. Carpenter questioned how long Mr. Edge had lived at his home. Mr. Edge responded that he has lived there since 1967. Mr. Cornell inquired if there was adequate room to relocate the deck next to the garage. Mr. Muehrer replied that the area on the east side of the garage was an open gravel parking area and to place the deck in that location would result in a 0' setback to the east property line. Patricia Diener, 1316 Broad Street, stated that she has lived at her residence for two years and felt that it was a bad place for the deck as it was too close to the sidewalk and unsafe for children in the area. She further stated that the police have been contacted due to gatherings on the deck in the past and was disturbed by the fact that the petitioner did not get a building permit for the deck as she has had to obtain permits for work done on her property. Mr. Carpenter questioned why the deck was a problem now as it was constructed five years ago without complaint. Mr. Edge responded that he was looking into constructing a patio in his side yard and found it was necessary to obtain a permit for it. Ms. Diener added that she just moved into this neighborhood recently and did not feel it was right that people are not abiding by the rules. She further commented that she felt it was best for everyone if the deck was moved to another location as it was a liability in its existing placement. Board members discussed the deck's close proximity to the sidewalk and what the limitations were for fencing. Mr. Muehrer replied that fencing was allowed to be placed up to the sidewalk but was limited to a height of four feet and 50% open once it extends beyond the front of the structure. Fencing can be 6' high and solid from the front of the structure extending to the backyard area. Mr. Colburn commented that the police have never been called to his residence for activities related to his deck and that Ms. Diener has contacted the authorities for other reasons. He reiterated that the deck was not a visibility issue. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 June 8, 2011 Mr. Carpenter questioned if there was adequate room to place the deck between the garage and house. Mr. Muehrer responded that there was approximately 17 feet between the two structures however there was ingress /egress stairs and a side door to the garage in this area which would be problematic and reviewed photos of the site. Board members discussed the open graveled parking area to the east of the garage and what constitutes a legal nonconforming use as well as the building codes that would apply if the deck was relocated closer to the house. They also discussed the possibility of moving the boat from the parking area east of the garage or if the gazebo would be allowed without the deck structure. Mr. Muehrer explained that something that was built prior to current ordinance standards was considered a legal nonconforming use and allowed to remain but this would not apply in the case of the deck as it was constructed after the current code requirements were in place. He also discussed how moving the deck closer to the house would require another variance and the fire code issues that would also result from this action as it would be considered an attached structure if located within five feet from the house. He further stated that it was not practical for function or aesthetically pleasing in this location. Placing the deck on the east side of the garage would result in the loss of the off street parking space for the boat and the gazebo would still be considered recreational equipment with the same restrictions with or without the deck structure. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the deck could be moved closer to the house to resolve safety issues. Mr. Muehrer responded that the deck would still require a variance in this location and he felt that the issue in this case was personal conflicts among the neighbors. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the board needed to consider this request from the point of view that the deck had not already been constructed and he felt there were visibility issues with the deck being placed that close to the sidewalk. Mr. Colburn stated that to relocate it to some of the suggested areas was not feasible for him as he has a dog kennel in one area and desires to construct an addition onto the garage in the future. Ms. Cryan questioned how many cars the garage was able to accommodate. Mr. Colburn replied that it has room for two cars however the boat does not fit in the garage. Board members discussed if the need for a gazebo constitutes a hardship. It was determined that it was a discretionary matter. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit a detached deck within the front yard setback. Seconded by Penney. Board members discussed the desire to allow homeowners to do what they want with their property however it was the general consensus that the deck was not appropriate in its current location and was a movable structure. Discussion also took place regarding neighborhood conflicts and trying to come to an agreeable compromise. A question was raised if the petitioner would have to pay another fee to come back to the board with a revised variance request. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 June 8, 2011 Mr. Muehrer stated that the variance can be amended with a condition before voting on it; however, if the petitioner comes back to the board with another request at a future meeting, a new fee would be required. Board members then discussed if the item could be laid over to the next meeting which would not require an additional fee to be paid and discussed the possibility of relocating the deck between the house and the garage. Mr. Colburn stated that he would not consider moving the deck to that location. Board members then discussed other possible locations for the deck, fire code issues, relocation of the boat, issues with the neighbors, and if the request would have been granted a variance if it had not already been constructed. Relocation of the deck was further discussed but an alternative acceptable location was unable to be reached. Motion denied 0 -5. Mr. Colburn questioned what the fine was if the deck was not removed and voiced his opinion of not getting his variance request approved. Mr. Muehrer responded that the fine was $232.00 per day per violation. ITEM II: 3710 WESTERN COURT Matthew Hauck - applicant /owner, requests the following variance to permit a 6' high privacy fence with a 0' front yard setback: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Front yard setback for 6' high fence 30 -35 (E)(3) 25' 0' Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The property is zoned R -1 Single Family Residence District and the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 6' high fence with a 0' front yard setback. The special condition that is applicable to the lot is it features two front yard areas which limits the placement of 6' high privacy fence and a hardship would be created as the property would be vulnerable to increased street noise, vehicle exhaust, and safety issues for their children if the fence cannot be constructed where proposed. A unique situation and hardship exists with the parcel's configuration as the zoning ordinance defines the area abutting W. Snell Road as a front yard although it is clearly rear yard in nature. Requiring the property owner to comply with the 25' setback would be unnecessarily burdensome and a variance was approved in 2008 for a neighboring property with nearly identical circumstances. The variance request is not anticipated to be detrimental to the public and he recommended approval of the request. Matthew Hauck, 3710 Western Court, stated that his wife operates a home daycare and a fence that is 50% open would be unsafe for the children. He added that she is considering getting a state license for the child care use. Ms. Duellman questioned if the petitioner had considered the use of trees such as arborvitae in lieu of the fencing. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 June 8, 2011 Mr. Hauck responded that Snell Road is a heavily traveled street and children could get through the trees. Ms. Cryan asked for an explanation of shadow box style fencing. Mr. Hauck described the design element of the fencing. Mr. Penney commented that there were safety issues on Snell Road due to the traffic volume and speed. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a 6' high privacy fence with a 0' front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Lisa Hauck stated that there were no parks for children in the neighborhood and she would like to have a park within walking distance of her home. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Addresses safety issue. No harm to public interest. Unique situation. DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES Mr. Muehrer stated that there were no changes to the current Procedures and Regulations -City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals document. The City Attorney was not present at the meeting today as there were no issues to address with the current document but she could be invited at a later date if board members felt it necessary. The board members agreed that the document did not require revisions this year so consulting with the City Attorney would be unnecessary. Ms. Cryan questioned if the board members' addresses and phone numbers were on the City's website. Mr. Muehrer responded that he had previously requested that this information be removed from the website and to the best of his knowledge, it was done. He would follow up on it to ensure that the personal information was not listed. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. (Penney /Krasniewski). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 6 June 8, 2011