Board of Zoning Appeals

THESE ARE THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018, AT 7:00 P.M. HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, 2000 N. CALHOUN ROAD, BROOKFIELD. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Bublitz, Gordon Rozmus, Frank DeGuire, Alderman Ron Balzer MEMBERS ABSENT & EXCUSED: Robert Buikema; Rod Carter, Alderman Bill Carnell (alt.) ALSO PRESENT: Zoning & Building Administrator Larry Goudy Kevin Bublitz called the meeting to order at 7:00 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. August 9, 2018, Minutes • Gordon Rozmus moved approval of the August 9, 2018, 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 13, 2018, 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. Esther and Jerry Casey, 4640 N. 147th St.: Yard Maintenance Building The next item was the request of Esther and Jerry Casey, Lot 4 Blk 2 Meadow Valley Subdivision PT NW ¼ NE ¼ Sec 2 T7N R20E to appeal Section 15.04.420 C.a. and 17.112.010 C. to permit a yard maintenance building at 4640 N. 147th Street. The yard maintenance building is proposed at 40’ from the front property line. The Code does not permit structures in the 50’ setback and requires yard maintenance buildings to be located in the rear yard. Zoning and Building Administrator Larry Goudy stated the owners are requesting to put a new shed in the location of their existing shed. The existing shed was in its location when they purchased the property. There is no record of a permit associated with it, but there is a record in the Assessor’s office of it being in place sometime in the mid 1970’s. Their request is Board of Appeals Page 2 September 13, 2018 to remove that shed and replace it in the same location. Mr. Goudy explained the 2004 survey and the buildable area, noting that the rear offset varies between 5’ and 20’, depending on the age of the survey. Notice has been sent out to the neighbors and no comments were received by staff from them. The applicant provided neighbor signatures in support of the proposal. An email from Alderman Sutton was received in support of the proposal. This violates two sections of the code. Jerry Casey stated the area around the shed has been professionally landscaped by them after they bought the property. He stated in 1997, the shed was removed temporarily to pour new concrete, sidewalk and driveway. When he did that, pictures were taken of the shed and were brought to the city inspector. The inspector gave a verbal approval to do that. He didn’t get anything in writing. He wouldn’t have spent the money on it if he knew that location wasn’t permissible. The shape of the lot is not standard. It’s on a large curve in the road. The house in angled and the yard becomes pie shaped from the back yard. In 2004, they did an addition of a four season room and patio off the back of the house. These were both designed to enjoy the little green space they have in the back yard. There is an underground electric service from the back corner of the house to the very back corner of the lot line. It negates that area from being buildable. To build a new shed on the property would incur additional costs for obtaining a new survey ($400) and a new slab of concrete ($1,500). Different neighbors would be affected if the shed had to be relocated. The shed has been in the same location for over 40 years. Nobody as far as he knows has ever complained about it or told us it wasn’t legal, including the City. Esther Casey stated the shed really can’t be seen from the road because of the landscaping. Alderman Bill Carnell, 1st District Alderman, stated he has been to their home several times. He stated Mr. Casey’s lot has been extensively landscaped. He observed where the old tin shed is and where the new shed would go. He has provided photos of the landscaping hiding that shed. As far as hardship, there is a hardship of requiring him to put that shed in another location. The owner didn’t include the cost of replacing the landscaping either. He would have to put up additional landscaping. The neighbors share the same view of the back yard if the shed were to be relocated. Alan Haefer stated he lives next door and stated because of the way the house lies, Casey’s back yard is the border of his west border (there is a patio, a row of trees and then his place). His property is gorgeous and beautifully landscaped. There really isn’t a place for a shed. He would have to take down a huge row of trees. He doesn’t object and supports this request. Barbara Ahrndt stated she lives directly across the street and has been looking at the shed for as long as she lived there. She stated since Jerry and Esther have landscaped it, she doesn’t see it. If it would be put anywhere else on his property, she thought it would be an eyesore. There is not much he can do there because of the shape of the properties. Mr. Bublitz stated that he visited the site and the lot is very unique. There really isn’t a spot in the backyard this can be placed. If it were moved to a different spot, it would be more obtrusive to the neighbors. There is support from both aldermen and there is no public objection. It’s being installed in the same location. He is in favor of granting it. Board of Appeals Page 3 September 13, 2018 Mr. DeGuire asked about the types of trees that would need to be removed. It was replied they are arborvitae that were planted to provide screening. From the Casey’s house to the neighbor’s house, it’s about 25’-30’ (the house to house). The arborvitae are about 15’ tall. Alderman Balzer asked about the height of the new shed. It was replied it is about 2’ taller than the old shed. He will not prune the shrubs around the new shed to allow them to get tall. The new shed will match the house materials and design. • Kevin Bublitz moved approval of the variance as requested due to the unique nature of the property, the support of the aldermen and public, no public objection, unnecessary costs that would be incurred to move the shed, the existing location is less obtrusive to the majority of neighbors and the structure of the new shed would be an improvement of materials and design. The motion was seconded by Alderman Balzer and carried unanimously. • Frank DeGuire moved to adjourn. Seconded by Kevin Bublitz and carried unanimously. Meeting ended at 7:17 p.m. Minutes submitted by Renee J. Tadych, Deputy City Clerk.