Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-12 bd of appeals minutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES May 9, 2012 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Janet Duellman, Kathryn Larson, Jane Cryan, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: Dan Carpenter, Dennis Penney 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. The minutes of April 11, 2012 were approved as presented. (Krasniewski/Duellman) ITEM I: 1001 W. WAUKAU AVENUE, ETAL Omnni Associates Inc.-applicant, Winnebago County-owner, requests the following variances to permit a new airport perimeter access drive and 10’ high chain link security fencing in the minimum setback: Description Code ReferenceRequired Proposed Front yard setback 30-30 (B)(1) 30’ 1’ Side yard setback 30-30 (B)(2) 20’ 1’ Rear yard setback 30-30 (B)(3) 25’ 1’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and explained that the lands comprising Wittman Regional Airport total approximately 1400 acres in area and is located in multi-jurisdictions and is multi-zoned. The applicant is proposing to construct improvements near the perimeter of the facilities necessary due to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements relating to maintenance, safety, and security. The project limits meander throughout the multi-jurisdictional boundaries however the variance request is restricted to the areas located in the City of Oshkosh. No adverse effect on surrounding properties is anticipated and the special condition applicable is the federal regulations the facility is mandated to adhere to and a hardship would continue as safety and security concerns would remain unaddressed. The large area comprising the facilities poses challenges when implementing traditional zoning standards and the variance is recommended for approval as it is not anticipated to be detrimental to the public. th Pete Moll, Wittman Regional Airport Director, 525 West 20 Avenue, stated he was present if Board members had any questions regarding the request. Ms. Cryan questioned if there was any wildlife on site and if its movement would be impeded by the fence installation. Mr. Moll responded that they had a wildlife survey completed and there was deer present on the site. The airport management is trying to keep the wildlife off of the airport property as collisions with airport can be catastrophic. Ms. Larson inquired as to why the zoning ordinance did not address these issues. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 May 9, 2012 Mr. Muehrer responded that the 10’ high proposal must meet the minimum principal structure setbacks of the zoning district but this would only apply in the areas that are within the City’s jurisdiction. Ms. Cryan also questioned if there was any pristine land that was going to be affected and if fencing already exists in the entire area. Mr. Moll indicated that the fencing already exists however it is 4-6 feet in height rather than 10 feet and it would not be anymore of an impediment to the area. Mr. Cornell inquired since the entire area is meandering through multiple jurisdictions, if one entity denies the request, how it would affect the overall plan. Mr. Moll replied that both FAA and TSA restrictions require the upgrades to the facility. Mr. Cornell questioned why the airport was seeking to replace the two, four, and six foot fence with 10 foot fencing, however there were areas of eight foot fencing that would be allowed to remain. Mr. Moll responded that the eight foot fencing is too new to be replaced at this point. Mr. Krasniewski inquired about the area near Oregon Street where there is both City and County owned lands as the fence is on City property that is requesting the variance however the adjacent property is County lands. Mr. Muehrer replied that the Board considers only what is located on City lands and adjacent property owners in the County are not part of the decision. Tom White, representing Basler Turbo Conversions, stated that he had no objections to the proposed changes for the fencing however he did have concerns about the gate areas they utilize for their manufacturing purposes. He desired to ensure that the existing gates will be maintained as part of the proposed upgrades. Mr. Moll indicated that the gates will be maintained as they currently exist. Larry Last, 3827 Red Oak Court, discussed his personal history and stated he had some concern with this issue and with statements in both the application and staff report regarding FAA requirements, no adverse effects on adjacent property owners, and the regulations that the airport is mandated to adhere to. He also discussed the location of the fencing and the possible negative effects on the airport’s federal funding that may occur if the proposed security upgrades are not completed. He read from numerous emails and other documents from the FAA and TSA regarding perimeter requirements for fencing. He also made reference to TSA guidelines and several FAA circulars regarding security effectiveness. He also read excerpts from the Winnebago County Aviation Committee meeting minutes regarding airport funding and discussed the difference between requirements and recommendations and contested the statements that there were any threats to the airport’s funding if these upgrades were not completed. He displayed a diagram of the airport showing where incidents have occurred in the past which were not near the residents’ property on Red Oak Court. He also discussed the wildlife issues and the FAA’s public participation involvement policy. He had objections to the statements that there would be no adverse affects on adjacent property owners as these plans had not been discussed with them. He also stated that the fence and road are not required and the airport was not following FAA regulations. He felt public input should be obtained and the fencing should be installed 10-30 feet from the lot line. He felt the Board should delay making a decision on the variance request and get all the facts straight. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 May 9, 2012 Mr. Krasniewski stated that there were two properties on the north end of Red Oak Court which are not located in the city limits and the board was considering the variance for the location of the fence only which is located within the City of Oshkosh. Mr. Last commented that he did not like the misleading statement of facts and the property owners on Red Oak Court do not like this project coming forward to the Board without being discussed with them first. Ms. Larson questioned if the neighbors would find an eight foot fence more agreeable. Mr. Last indicated that they would however they would also like to save the trees in the area as well. Ms. Larson questioned if the Outagamie County Airport had ten foot fencing at the perimeter. Mr. Last responded that they do however different types of airports have different certifications and he felt that the ten foot fence on the south side is appropriate however he did not feel it was by the residential properties. Ms. Larson commented that the airport could potentially expand its service at this facility. Mr. Krasniewski asked for clarification of rear and side yards for the property located near Oregon Street. Mr. Muehrer explained what areas would be considered side or rear yards based on where the street frontage was located for the various parcels. Sherree Zellner, 3669 Oregon Street, stated she was unclear about the location of the fence near Oregon Street and that there was a berm with trees behind their house and she was looking to clarify exactly where the fence would be located. Mr. Moll discussed the location of her home and the proposed fencing and determined that there would be no fencing installed in the area. Wayne Daniels, 3778 Red Oak Court, discussed the location of the current fencing and the hangar in proximity to his property and questioned if the new fence would be in the same location as it currently exists as he would have no objections to it if it was not being relocated. Mr. Moll responded that the fence project was a remove and replace project and it would be located in the same place ten feet off the property line. He further stated that discussions on fencing replacement in this area have gone back as far as the 1980’s and it was discussed with residential property owners at the time they purchased their parcels. He also reaffirmed that the ten foot fence was recommended by the FAA. Ms. Larson questioned if trees would be removed due to the project. Mr. Moll replied that some would be removed however he did not have any exact numbers but it wasn’t many that he was aware of. He also commented about Mr. Last’s statement that there were not deer in the area as the airport’s maintenance workers have confirmed that they are present. Ms. Larson questioned why the fence was proposed to be one foot off the property line. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 May 9, 2012 Mr. Moll responded that it was to prevent adverse possession by property owners adjacent to the airport and a larger area would require more maintenance on the airport’s part. He also commented that the FAA has 90% of the funding available to pay for the project and that the airport only pays 5% of the costs. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for variances to permit a new airport perimeter access drive and 10’ high chain link security fencing with a 1’ front/side and rear yard setbacks. Seconded by Cornell. Ms. Cryan asked for clarification on what portion of the project the Board is voting on. Mr. Cornell explained that the Board is only considering areas that pertain to City jurisdiction and any areas located in the County is not a concern. Motion carried 3-1-1. (Ayes-Cornell/Larson/Krasniewski. Nays-Cryan. Abstained-Duellman (due to a conflict in interest). Finding of Facts: No harm to public interest in city. Unique situation. 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 ReferenceRequired 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. He explained that the property received a variance on 06/08/11 for the same request however since no building permit was obtained, the original variance expired and the applicant needs to reapply. 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. Lisa Hauck, 3710 Western Court, stated that there were no changes from their last submittal in 2011 and that they just failed to obtain the building permit prior to the approved variance request’s expiration. Mr. Krasniewski questioned who owned the existing fencing and if the reasoning for the variance request was still the same. Ms. Hauck responded that the existing fence was owned by their neighbor and the reason for the request remained the same. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 May 9, 2012 Ms. Larson inquired if Snell Road was access restricted. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Motion by Cryan to approve the request for a variance to permit a 6’ high privacy fence with a 0’ front yard setback. Seconded by Larson. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Addresses safety issue. No harm to public interest. Unique situation. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Cornell stated that the Board reorganization usually takes place at the June meeting and questioned if the Board would meet for this reason even if no items were submitted. Mr. Muehrer indicated that the Board reorganization would take place at the July meeting if no items were submitted for June. Ms. Cryan questioned if the Board could use the microphones in the room to amplify the sound or if the table could possibly be rearranged as she is experiencing trouble hearing at the meetings. Mr. Muehrer stated that he would look into the matter and see what could be done to correct the issue. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. (Duellman/Krasniewski). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 5 May 9, 2012