Board of Zoning Appeals

THESE ARE THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2017, AT 7:00 P.M. HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, 2000 N. CALHOUN ROAD, BROOKFIELD. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Bublitz, Rod Carter, Gordon Rozmus, Frank DeGuire, Robert Buikema MEMBERS ABSENT & EXCUSED: Alderman Ron Balzer, Alderman Lisa Mellone (alt.) ALSO PRESENT: Zoning & Building Administrator Kevin Bublitz called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. He stated that the notice of hearing has been duly published pursuant to the State open meetings law and explained the procedure to present the appeals to the Board this evening 1. Roll Call Mr. Bublitz indicated that a quorum is present and that the request for variances must receive the affirmative vote of three members of the Board in order for a request to be granted. New Business: 2a. July 13, 2017, Minutes • Robert Buikema moved approval of the July 13, 2017, Board of Appeals meeting minutes. Seconded by Frank DeGuire and carried unanimously. ******** Public Hearing & Consideration of Appeal: Certain requests for building permits have been submitted to the City of Brookfield and have been denied by the Zoning & Building Administrator because they did not comply with the Zoning, Building or Sign Code of the City of Brookfield. There will be a Public Hearing held before the Board of Appeals on September 14, 2017, at 7:00 pm at the Common Council Chambers for the express purpose of considering the following request(s) for variance. Please note that following the public hearing(s) the Board intends to take action by considering the request indicated: 3a. Natasha and Eric Broxton, 2655 Arbor Dr.: Swimming Pool Fence The next item was the request of Natasha and Eric Broxton, Lot 1 Blk 7 Sheraton Park PT E ½ SE ½ SE ¼ & NE ¼ Sec 13 T7N R20E, to appeal Section 15.04.330 C.3 to permit installation of a swimming pool fence which is too close to the lot line at 2655 Arbor Drive. The re-built fence is located at the lot line where 10’ is the minimum requirement. Mr. Goudy gave a brief review of the request. The pool and fence were constructed in 1977, well before the Broxton’s purchased the property. At that time, the code did not have Board of Appeals Page 2 September 14, 2017 specific regulations regarding pool fences. It was common that the fence would be placed at the lot line. Recently, the code was changed to permit fences only around the pool and sitting area (patio, deck, hardscape area). The fence must be no further away than 10’ from the hardscape area, but never closer than 10’ to the property line. Mr. Broxton stated they didn’t know there were rules about fences. When they bought the house, the neighbor contacted them and said the fence was coming down. There was water drainage issues, frost damage, and the fence was rotten. He wasn’t aware of the fence ordinance in the case of replacing a fence. The fence actually fell into the neighbor’s yard. It had to be replaced with the same fence. He wanted to work on one section and then that led to replacing the next section. There was no intent to violate the code. He spoke with several contractors about the ability to move the fence closer to the pool. The contractor said that if the fence is moved, drilling holes near the pool could damage the superstructure of the pool. He talked to another contractor and he said that moving the fence will do more harm. The neighbors are very supportive. Mr. Goudy added that the pool would not be permitted in its current location if it was applied for now. He also noted that surrounding neighbors were notified and there were two positive responses (email shared at meeting). Mr. Carter asked if it is allowed to replace a portion of the fence. Mr. Goudy replied that code permits a resident to replace 50%, as a maintenance procedure. Mr. Carter felt the intent was to replace one section. Mr. Broxton agreed and added that it kept getting worse. Mr. Carter stated the owner could have gotten around it by fixing 50% but instead, he improved a bad situation. Mr. Broxton stated he ignored a bad situation for a while. Mr. Carter added the complainant didn’t come forward, and has no issue with it. Mr. Broxton stated this will put him in serious hardship to comply with the current code. Mr. Rozmus stated that water problems are an argument and compliance with setback requirements would cause further hardship. He asked what is the idea behind the fence being 50% open? Mr. Goudy replied it would minimize the visual impact of the pool and fence and is consistent with Brookfield’s open concept regarding fences. • Robert Buikema moved to grant the variance, based on the fact that the fence was in place at the time of purchase, the neighbors support the replacement, and the property has unique features that make it difficult to comply with setback regulations. The motion was seconded by Kevin Bublitz and carried unanimously. ****** • Frank DeGuire moved to adjourn. Seconded by Gordon Rozmus and carried unanimously. Meeting ended at 7:25 p.m. Minutes submitted by Renee J. Tadych, Deputy City Clerk.