VILLAGE OF PEWAUKEE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
October 22, 2020
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Clerk Smith called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call was taken with the following present: Kristine Tawil, Douglas Joers, Alternate Richard Goldade and Thomas Houck. Susan Seagrist, Alternate Patricia Stonger, and Theresa Opie were excused.
Also Present: Mark Blum, Village Attorney; Scott Gosse, Village Administrator; Cassie Smith, Village Clerk.
Clerk Smith asked the board for recommendations for acting chairperson.
Kristine Tawil offered to Act as the Chairperson for the October 22, 2020 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Motion carried on consensus.
2. Approval of Minutes
a. September 14, 2016
b. April 20, 2017
c. June 26, 2017
d. July 27, 2017
e. October 5, 2017
f. July 18, 2019
T. Houck moved, seconded by K. Tawil to approve the minutes of the September 14, 2016, April 20, 2017, June 26, 2017, July 27, 2017, October 5, 2017 and July 18, 2019 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as presented.
Motion carried 4-0.
3. Public Hearing
a. To consider a Request of Scott and Jennifer Immel as applicants and property owners, to construct a new detached accessory garage structure at 161/163 Main Street in a location that is closer to the side lot line (i.e. 5 feet proposed vs 10 feet minimum required) and taller (i.e. 22 feet proposed vs 15 feet maximum permitted) than the Ordinance provides for.
Scott Immel @ 161/163 Main Street – Mr. Immel referenced the handouts of the non-conforming lot submitted for review of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The lot is non-conforming due to the acreage being less than one acre but he would like to be able to construct a garage on the property with the offset to be 5’ vs. the 10’ required. To conform with the current offset the garage would have to be placed behind the house and that is not something he would like to do and he sees that as a hardship. He would also like to construct the garage to be taller than allowable per the code as he would like to keep the same look as the house so that the garage building can be consistent with the current house.
Attorney Blum verified that that Mr. Immel submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals a document listing 7 items signed by Scott and Jennifer Immel, a picture of the front elevation of the house, a picture of the current driveway and shed, a sketch of the proposed garage, a document regarding the accessory building height with 5 items listed, a sketch showing the roof pitch of the house and a 12/12 proposed garage roof pitch, sketch of the house and a 6/12 garage roof pitch, a sketch of the proposed roof height in comparison to the mandated roof height and a survey of the property with the proposed garage shown.
T. Houck stated he appreciated the overlay on the survey and asked if the rear lot line goes back to Wisconsin Ave. Mr. Immel stated that the property does go all the way back to Wisconsin but there is a jog in the property which can be seen on the survey with a slight elevation. The elevation difference from Main Street to Wisconsin Ave is about 10 feet drop.
Charles Ramage – 159 Main Street – Mr. Ramage stated he is not hearing hardship only inconvenience about the proposed garage, he could make the garage smaller to fit the lot.
Mary Ramage – 159 Main Street – Ms. Ramage wants to know the footprint of the garage, what are the dimensions and who is going to build the garage.
Mr. Immel stated that the garage is 22’ in width and 40‘ in depth.
Charles Ramage – 159 Main Street – Mr. Ramage asked what types of materials would be used to construct the garage.
Mr. Immel stated that the materials used will be relatively the same as the house, they want to keep the garage look the same as the home with 6” lap siding.
Charles Ramage – 159 Main Street – Mr. Ramage asked is the garage will be attached and will it require expansion of the drive in width or length.
Mr. Immel stated that the garage will not be attached and the driveway will not be expanded.
Charles Ramage – 159 Main Street – Mr. Ramage asked if their will be utilities; water, sewer, electric or gas.
Mr. Immel stated that the garage will have electricity. Attorney Blum stated the code would not allow for the structure to be lived in.
Mr. Immel responded to Attorney Blum stating that the existing shed would be razed if the proposed garage was approved.
Mary Ramage – 159 Main Street – Ms. Ramage questioned the elevation change; will he need to bring in fill to account for that elevation change.
Mr. Immel responded that it is about a 2’ difference in elevation but the structure will have a footing all the way around with siding all the way around the structure covering the block.
K. Tawil moved, seconded by D. Joers closed the Public Hearing at approximately 7:29 p.m.
Motion carried 4-0.
4. New Business
a. To consider a Request of Scott and Jennifer Immel as applicants and property owners, to construct a new detached accessory garage structure at 161/163 Main Street in a location that is closer to the side lot line (i.e. 5 feet proposed vs 10 feet minimum required) and taller (i.e. 22 feet proposed vs 15 feet maximum permitted) than the Ordinance provides for.
Attorney Blum read 40.134(2) of the Village of Pewaukee Municipal Code. Clerk Smith showed the Finds of Facts on the screen to facilitate the meeting and conclusions of law.
A. Are the restrictions on the property unnecessarily burdensome, preventing the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose?
T. Houck expressed that he believes the restrictions placed on this property are unnecessary burdensome due to the property being legal non-conforming and the proposed lot size is roughly a third of the lot if it was new construction and what would be required. Looking at the age of the property and it is falling into a zoning requirement after the structure driveway and pad has been in place and trying to apply the zoning standards that would apply to a much larger lot. The characteristics of the property regarding the decline in elevation on the property due to the amount of fill that would be needed would not match the character of abutting properties. Restrictions placed on the property are unnecessary burdensome and preventing the owner of using the property for the permitted purpose of the multi-family residence. K.Tawil agreed with T. Houck and added that using the property for a permitted purpose includes having an appropriate garage and she believes the restrictions are unnecessary burdensome due to the size of the lot. D. Joers stated he doesn’t see the hardship as the proposed garage doesn’t have to be two cars deep where the garage could be placed further back on the property towards Wisconsin Ave. and he doesn’t see the height difference from 15’ to 22 due to the style of the house as it has having flat roofs; he understands getting close to the south lot line but the garage could be moved further back and therefore he doesn’t see this as a hardship. T. Houck asked if there would be some type of impervious issue with the driveway and the drainage. D. Joers turned the garage 90° and it fits in the property within the code. T. Houck stated that if you turn the garage can you pull into the garage? K. Tawil stated she has a property where the garage is at a 90° turn and it is horrible and would never build a garage like that. D. Joers stated he still doesn’t see the hardship. R. Goldade took the garage and moved it 90° and it may not be ideal but it would allow for the structure to be built within the current limits, even if the structure would be moved back. There are options, the hardship is not the property it is just figuring out where the structure can fit on the property. T. Houck reminded the Board that at one point this property did have a garage at one time but he thinks the hardship the zoning for this property and the property not having the sq.ft on the property as the zoning requires. K. Tawil stated that fitting the garage in to be compliant with the current zoning would create more hardships such as additional costs. R. Goldade asked if the garage needed to be 2 cars deep. T. Houck responded and stated that if two people are working and ideally both would like their cars in the garage.
T. Houck moved, seconded by K. Twil to approve the variance request for 161/163 Main Street as requested from the Village right-of-way due to the lot configuration and severe elevation difference and the of the property and the height variance due to being consistent with the historic property including the following conditions:
a) Construction of the garage to start within 12 months
b) Materials to be consistent with the current structure
c) Shed to be razed before construction of garage begins
d) The applicant to act on the variance within 1 year of approval.
Motion carried on Roll Call Vote, 4-0.
b. Discussion and Possible Action to Determine Future Meeting Date (if needed).
None.
5. Adjournment
T. Houck moved, seconded by K. Twil to adjourn the October 22, 2020 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Motion carried 4-0.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 7:52 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Casandra Smith
Village Clerk