Board of Appeals

VILLAGE OF WAUNAKEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING 500 W. Main Street August 12, 2019 5:00 PM Meeting Mi n utes CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Linda Adler, Ray Hill, Todd Micholic, Trisha Ives, Leigh Streit, Brett Backus Absent: None Also Present: Tracy Meinholz, Bryan Kleinmaier, Sean & Heather Murray. APPELLANTS OR APPLICANTS OPENING STATEMENT Attorney Kleinmaier gave a brief overview of the process and procedure. The applicants then explained their situation to the Board. QUESTIONS BY BOARD MEMBERS Board members asked questions of the applicants and the Village Attorney . STATEMENTS OF OPINION OF NEIGHBORS OR ABUTTING LANDOWNERS There were no written comments received and no one present to speak. DELIBERATION Board members went through the Findings of Fact and made their determination. Motion Hill, second Ives, to approve the attached Findings of Fact and Order of Determination. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURN Motion Streit, second Micholic, to adjourn the meeting at 5:44 p.m. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted: Tracy Meinholz, Plan Commission Secretary  VILLAGE OF WAUNAKEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZONING VARIANCE Filing Date: __July 11, 2019__________ Parcel #s: _191/0809-082-4852-0____ Hearing Date: __August 12, 2019________ Notice Dates: August 1, 2019 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Zoning Board of Appeals finds the following facts: 1. Applicants: _ Sean and Heather Murray __________________________________ 2. The Applicants are the [owners] [lessee] of the following described property that is the subject of the application (address, CSM, or other description): _______________________________________________________________________ ___603 O’Malley Street, Waunakee, WI 53597 _______________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 3. The property is presently being used as a _single-family residential_____ use and is a ____ permitted use in the zoning district or a ____ legal-nonconforming use in the zoning district in which it lies. 4. The existing structure ____ does; or ____ does not conform to current zoning standards. 5. The Applicants propose (brief description/attach plans): __The Applicants wish to construct a 6-foot high vinyl fence around the side and back of the house located at 603 O’Malley Street. Please see board packet for plans.__________________________________________________________________ 6. The Applicants request [use] [area] variances to the following section of the Village of Waunakee Zoning Code: ____________________________________________________________________________Sectio n 133-1135(c)(1) – an area variance to the requirement that fences in street yards be no higher than four (4) feet. __________________________________ 7. What specific departure from the ordinance is being proposed (refer to the standards of the ordinance): ________________________________________________________________________ The Applicants’ property has streets on three sides: O’Malley Street to the west, Seventh Street to the south and an alley to the north. Because of this, the property does not have the typical front yard, rear yard, and two side yards. If it did, an area variance would not be required in this instance. ______________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Instead, the property has a front yard, a rear yard, and two street yards*. In this case, the front yard faces O’Malley Street, a street yard faces the alley, a street yard faces Seventh Street, and the rear yard faces a home behind the property. For a street yard, the maximum 1  height of a fence is 4 feet. The specific departure from the Village ordinance is to allow the construction of a 6-foot high fence in the street yards instead of the permitted 4-foot high fence.______________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ *The Village Zoning Code defines a “street yard” as “a yard extending across the full width of the lot, the depth of which shall be the minimum horizontal distance between the existing street or highway right-of-way line and a line parallel thereto through the nearest point of the principal structure. Corner lots shall have two street yards.”____________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the above findings of fact, the Board draws the following conclusions: A. Is the variance consistent with the purpose and intent of the regulations for the district in which the development is located? Yes _X__ or, No ____. Explain. _The Property is located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential District. The purpose of the R-2 district is to “provide a district for residential development for single-family homes similar in character to the R-1 district but of higher density and permitting small lots and smaller homes.” The variance will not change the use of the property, which is already consistent with the purpose of the R-2 district. The variance will simply allow a 6-foot high fence to be constructed in an area where a 4-foot high fence is already permitted. ________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ B. Owing to special conditions, will a literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance result in an unnecessary hardship? For an area variance, an unnecessary hardship exists if compliance with the strict letter of the restrictions governing area, setbacks, frontage, height, bulk, or density would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. For a use variance, an unnecessary hardship exists if the applicant demonstrates that without the variance the applicant has no reasonable use of the property. Yes _X__ or, No ____. Explain. _In this case, enforcement of the height restriction for the fence would be unduly burdensome. In their Application, the Applicants state that they have a 13-year old son who is autistic, and they are concerned that he could run and jump over a 4-foot high fence. They do not believe he can jump over a 6-foot high fence. Further, if the Property was not so unique because of its location, a 6-foot high fence would already be permitted. This creates an unnecessary hardship for this family. _______ ________________________________________________________________________ C. Is the hardship unique to the property? Note that the hardship must be due to exceptional, extraordinary, or unusual circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district and that are not of a recurring or general nature. Yes _X__ or, No ____. Explain. 2  _The Property is unique in two ways. First, the Property has streets on three sides: O’Malley Street to the west, Seventh Street to the south and an alley to the north. Because of this, the property does not have the typical front yard, rear yard, and two side yards. If it did, an area variance would not be required in this instance. Second, the Property is unique in that the family has a special need for a 6-foot high fence instead of a 4-foot high fence. _________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ D. Is the hardship self-created? Note that the hardship cannot be self-created and that no variance is to be granted solely based on economic gain or loss. Yes ____, or No _X__. Explain. _The Applicants did not create this hardship. ________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ E. Will the variance create a detriment to adjacent property or materially impair or be contrary to the purpose and spirit of this ordinance or the public interest? Yes ____, or No _X__. Explain. _With the variance, the Property will still be used for a permitted purpose. Further, the variance is only necessary because of the location of the house (that is, the house has streets on three sides). If the house only fronted one street, a variance would not be necessary for a fence of this height. _______________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 3  ORDER AND DETERMINATION On the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions of law and the record in this matter the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Village of Waunakee orders the requested variance is [denied] or [granted] subject to the following conditions: _The fence shall be constructed pursuant to the plans (except color) provided to the Village, which plans are part of the packet, and subject to final approval by the Village Director of Public Works. ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ The Director of Public Works is directed to issue an area variance permit incorporating these conditions. Construction, if any, for which a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be completed within one year or the variance shall become null and void. Extension for exercise of the permit or privilege may be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals upon written request by the applicant. This order may be revoked by the Zoning Board of Appeals after notice and opportunity to be heard for violation of any of the conditions imposed. This decision may be appealed by filing an action in certiorari in the Dane County Circuit Court within 30 days after the date of filing of this decision. The Village of Waunakee assumes no liability for and makes no warranty as to reliance on this decision if construction is commenced prior to expiration of this 30-day period. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Signed _________Linda Adler, Chairperson Attest ____Tracy Meinholz, Clerk__________ Dated: __August 12, 2019______________ Filed: ____August 13, 2019_________________ 4