Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/2002 P & Z minutes 34-01MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. ZBA-34-01 PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Hearing Date: January 24, 2002 Helen Hennigan 1801 E. Boulder Dr. January 9, 2002 Daily Herald Variations to: (1) allow a shed with a setback of 1' 1" to 4' 1"; (2) locate a shed in an easement; (3) increase the size ora Shed from 120 s.f. to 192 s.f. Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Flores Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: · None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Suzanne Mas6, Long Range Planner Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Helen Hennigan Teresa Maglione-Hamilton Gary & Nancy Stmhinic ~Enrie P. Solans Chairperson Arlene Jumeek called the meeting to order at 7:30p.m. Ms~ Juracek welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission that is oemprised of the former Zoning Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission. She introduced new members Joseph Donnelly and former Plan Commissioner, Matthew Sledz. At 8:09, after hearing Case No. ZBA-32-01 and Case No. PC-14-01, Ms~ Juraeek introduced Case No. ZBA-34-01, a request for Variations to the size and location ora shed. She said that this ease is Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the ease. Ms. Connolly stated that the subject property includes an existing home located on the bulb of a Cul-de-sac, adjacent to property owned by the Wisconsin Central Rail Road, Citizens Utilities, and another single-family residence. Ms. Connolly explained that the petitioner did not obtain a building permit when'she replaced an existing shed and that the new shed does not comply with zoning regulations. She said that the new shed is located I' from the side lot line and 4' from the rear lot line. It is 192 s.f., which is larger than the 120 square feet permitted by code. In addition, code requires that the shed be located no less than 5' from the lot lines and does not permit structures, which includes sheds, in an easement. Ms. Connolly reported that the property owner was notified that the shed did not comply with zoning regulations and that the homeowner is seeking variations for the size of the shed and its location. The petitioner states that the existing shed is the same square footage as the previous shed and that it is in the same location as the old shed. Ms. Connolly said that it is possible that the previous shed was constructed when this section of the Village was unincorporated and under County rule. She said that the previous shed might have been larger than 120 s.f. and not met current setback requirements, but that the Zoning Ordinance would recognize it as a 'legal non-conforming structure' and allowed it to remain. The non-conforming shed could be repaired and maintained, but a new shed, which is what the petitioner installed, has to meet current code requirements. Planning and Zoning Commission ZBA-34-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly said the petitioner also states them is insufficient storage on site and that a larger shed is needed to store household items. The petitioner's application includes letters from two neighbors expressing their support of the larger shed and a letter from Citizens Utility dated June 21, 2001 authorizing the applicant to replace the previous shed with the current shed. Ms. Connolly said that the letter does not indicate the exact location of the shed or the size of the new shed. Staffhas been in contact with Citizens Utility and received a letter dated January 14, 2002, which states that the company will allow the shed to remain, but that the company is not responsible for any loss incurred as a result of having the shed in the easement. Ms. Connolly explained that in order' to grant a variation, the request has to meet the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the standards are the same as the previous case and relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Connolly said staff had reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site after the new shed was constructed. She said that the parcel is developed with a single family home and an attached garage. The property is approximately 11,000 square feet; not in a flood zone, and is a triangular shape. Ms. Connolly said the applicant constructed an oversized shed in an easement and the shed does not meet the minimum 5' setback, requirements. The shed does not appear to be permanently attached to the ground and can be relocated out of the easement and meet setback requirements. However, the shed is larger than the maximum size that is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the shed is screened from the 'curb-view' and is adjacent to property owned by the Wisconsin Central Rail Road & Citizens Utilities, but the shed is visible from other backyards In addition, she said that the location of the she.d is a concern because it is in an easement. The homeowner is at risk. the utility companies or the Village n~e~ed to do work in the easement and a structure in an easement could disrupt drainage patterns. Ms. Connolly noted that, similar to the previous case, the proposed variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character. However, the cited justifications for the variations of limited storage and replacing a non- conforming shed do not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, staff-recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed Variations to permit a 192 s.fi shed to be located in an easement and be 1'1" and 4'1" from the side and rear lot lines for the residence at 1801 Boulder Drive, Case No. ZBA-34-01. The Village Board's decision is final for thi~ case. Helen Hennigan was sworn in and testified that her property backed up to a cul-de-sac and was the closest house to the railroad tracks and high-tension electric wires. She stated that the Citizen's Utilities prope~'y is to her right, and a home that is occupied by her daughter is next to the Citizens Utility property. She showed a picture of the shed and said it could not be seen from the street. She said that her neighbors approved of the shed and its location and that Citizen's Utilities hav. e no objection to the shed. Ms. Hennigan stated that Citizens Utilities has given her a key to their property, which she maintains for them. She said the size of the shed is necessary to keep patio furniture, a lawn tractor, and a snow blower. There is no room in her garage because it houses two cars and a refrigerator. She also said her husband had passed away December 16 and that obtaining a permit for the shed was over looked because she was focusing on her husband's health and another home improvement project (which she had a permit for before starting the work). Leo Floros asked why she had not obtained a permit. Ms. Hennigan said she did not know a permit was required to replace an existing shed. Richard Rogers asked about the location of the shed, which was in an easement. Ms. Hennigan said Citizen's Utilities has not used the easement for thirty years and that she has maintained the property for them for thirty years. lanning and Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson ZBA-34-2001 Page 3 Ms. Juraeek asked if the shed was on a foundation. Ms. Hennigan said she did not know, that perhaps it was on a brick base. Gary Strahinic, 1503 Boulder, was sworn in and said he had no objection to the shed, which he said was nice looking and practical. He said that he did not know there was an easement where the shed was located because Ms. Hennigan maintained the property. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Leo Floros pointed out that this was the second case of the evening in which a shed had been bUilt without a permit; that the sheds were oversized and located in an easement. He said he could not see any alternative but to vote no. Richard Rogers moved to approve the request as presented by Case No. ZBA-34-01, Variations to: (I) allow a shed with a setback of 1 ;1" to 4' 1"; (2) locate a shed in an easement; (3) increase the size of a shed from 120 s.f. to 192 s.f. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UpON ROLL CALL: AYES: NAYS: Floros, Cotten, Donnelly, Youngquist, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek Motion was denied 7-0. At 10:02 p.m., after the Planning and Zoning Commission heard another case, the Commission reviewed meeting procedures. Merrill Cotten made motion to commence P&Z Commission meetings at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. ~ UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juraeek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. Chairperson Juracek announced it was necessary to elect a Vice-Chair to the Commission. Keith Youngquist nominated Richard Rogers, Merrill Cotten seconded the nomination. There were no further nominations. UPON ROLLCALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS:None ABSTENTIONSi Rogers Motion was approved 6-0, with one abstention. As them were no other "housekeeping" items discussed, at 10:05 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary J~(cffy Cdr~6h~, get~io~'lan~dr V