Ready, the meeting for the Board of Zoning Appeals for June 8th, 2026.

It is 401, so we're a minute late, sorry.

Um I will do a roll call.

I'll start on my right.

Uh Eric Dunst.

Christine D'Angelo.

Timothy Reddick.

Kevin Riley.

Timish.

Is there any public comment from anyone that is not related to one of the appeals that is before the board this afternoon?

Seeing none, thank you.

Um, then the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the May 11, 2026 meeting.

Um motion to approve.

Kevin Rayleigh makes a motion to approve the minutes of May 11th.

Tim Reddick seconds the motion to approve the minutes of May 11th.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any nose?

I'm going to abstain since I was not at the meeting.

I don't, I can't attest to the completeness of the minutes.

All right, new business.

So for those of you that are here today for the appeals that are before the Board of Zoning Appeals, um, actually we're gonna start with ID number 26-03743, a presentation by the city attorney's office on the standards for variance approval.

You wanted to.

Thank you.

Uh that's what it is.

A little refresher course on variances, as you probably know already.

Uh this board has got two main functions.

One is to hear appeals from decisions of the zoning administrator, and the other is to consider applications for variances and uh to grant or deny them.

So it's important that you follow the legal standards for granting variances.

So we're just gonna shoot through this memo and some of the other materials that I attach to it quickly.

Um zoning has been around since about the 1920s, roughly.

It was in the 20s that Wisconsin adopted zoning laws, and they derive from a body of law from the common law called nuisance.

And a nuisance is when somebody uses their property in such a way that it prevents you from getting the full use and enjoyment of your property.

If uh one of your neighbors does something uh is uh burning garbage or whatever, and the smoke is continually blowing across your yard and preventing you from being able to use your property, that's a nuisance, and you could go to court and get an injunction to have that stopped.

The idea behind zoning law is to codify nuisance law by creating zones to try to separate uses that would cause a nuisance.

So that's the whole basis really of zoning law.

It's the uses that are the most important.

Um there are two types of variances.

One is a use variance, and the other is called an area variance, or it's sometimes called a dimensional variance.

And uh a use variance is where if an applicant shows sufficient grounds, you can grant an exception to the zoning law to allow a use that would not otherwise be allowable.

And because the uses and the conflicting uses that could cause a nuisance is really the heart and soul of zoning law.

The standards for granting a use variance are much stricter than an area variance.

And an area variance is essentially where on a property you can do a permitted use.

Um the idea being to keep some distance between things so once again they don't create a nuisance for neighboring property owners.

So let's talk about uh the process for granting a variance, either a use or an area variance.

The applicant has to show three things every time.

An unnecessary hardship, a unique property condition that's causing the hardship.

It has to be the hardship that the property owner is experiencing has to be as a result of a property condition.

And not just because of desires or uh you know wishes or uh my neighbor is able to do this, that sort of thing.

It has to be a property condition.

And then finally, the third part that has to be shown for every variance to be granted, is that granting the variance would not be harmful to the public interest.

In other words, it would not defeat the purpose of zoning law.

You can't grant a variance that would completely nullify the purpose of the zoning law and essentially would allow a nuisance to occur.

So let's talk about a granting a use variance.

The showing of a hardship in order to justify a use variance requires that if the variance is not granted, the property owner will have no use of the property at all.

It would render the property useless to the property owner.

In that case, if there is a property condition that if the zoning law were applied strictly, would render the property completely useless to the owner, then a use variance can be granted.

That is a very high standard, a very strict standard, and it's supposed to be extremely difficult to get a use variance because again, a use is really the heart and soul, the whole reason why zoning laws exist.

So it's a very strict standard.

It should not be a use variance, should not be granted without the applicant meeting a very high standard for showing that there's no use of the property remaining at all unless the variance is granted.

The showing of a hardship for an area variance is quite a bit easier.

But that doesn't mean it's easy to be granted, and it doesn't mean that you can ignore the criteria.

It just means that showing a hardship for an area variance, it had the applicant has to show that strict compliance of the zoning code would be an would unnecessarily prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted use or unnecessarily burden the property owner.

And usually what that means, an unnecessary burden, is usually referred to as not being able to do what other people in the same zoning district that have similar properties can do.

So in granting an exception for say locating a garage within a setback because of a unique property condition, like a stone outcropping or something like that, that means that the ordinary setback would not be able to be met, then that area or dimensional variance can be granted so that if everybody else in the neighborhood is able to have a garage, but because of that unique property condition on that property, that owner is not, then a variance can be granted to allow that.

So it can't be an unnecessary burden.

Couple of things about that, about hardships also is a hardship cannot be self-imposed.

You can't create a condition on a property yourself and then complain that it's a hardship and request a variance.

It has to be a condition that exists on the property without your creation of it.

You can't have a self-imposed hardship.

That is not allowed.

An economic loss or a financial consideration also does not constitute a hardship.

And this is probably the hardest thing for boards of zoning appeals, that you can't grant a variance just because you feel sympathy for the applicant.

You can't grant a variance because you disagree with the zoning law.

If you say, well, that's ridiculous.

Why shouldn't garages be allowed within X feet of a property line?

That's a stupid law.

We need to get rid of that, and therefore we're going to grant a variance.

You can't do that.

You have to follow the law, and the applicant has to meet the burden of proof in showing that a variance is appropriate.

Listed a couple of links on here.

I can also email this to you, so you've got those live links that you can click on them.

There's a lot of really good resource material out there for zoning boards to rely on.

Most of it is put out by the university extension in Stevens Point.

For some reason, Stevens Point, the university there has become kind of zoning central.

And they put out a lot of good materials.

I've got their handbook for zoning boards printed out here and in this binder.

It's a great resource, contains a lot of forms.

It's got a good thorough index.

I encourage you to take a look at that and probably also to go ahead and print it out and put it into a binder for your reference.

They've also, as uh part of their resource materials, published that variance decision form.

Um I know the city has its own form, but this is a form that kind of guides you through the decision making process.

And importantly, the very last page of it has some guidelines.

Uh guiding principles to grant a variance.

It's the back page of that memo that Charlie handed out earlier.

Um those are some things that you should study and uh apply those in your decision making process.

That's uh a very quick rundown on that.

Um I want you just to remember that when granting variances it's not this board's job, and it's not this board's authority to ignore the law and grant variances without the strict requirements, the strict criteria being met by the applicant.

The burden is on the applicant to show that.

Use variances, extremely hard to grant.

Area variances less difficult to grant, but still they must show those three three criteria for granting the uh the variance, an unnecessary hardship, a unique property condition.

It's got to be the property that's causing the problem, and that it does not harm the public interest, it doesn't defeat the purpose of the zoning code.

If you have any questions, I will try to answer them.

Otherwise, uh I would encourage you to use that memo and the materials with it as a guide for making your decisions when you've got uh variance applications before you and we did uh the the memo that Brian uh sent out uh was included as an agenda attachment, so it should be in your emails if you want to uh if you want to go to any of those additional resources.

Thanks for that, Charlie.

Any questions from anyone up here?

No ma'am.

All right, thank you.

You're welcome, Brian.

Thank you.

All right, we will move to the rest of the agenda.

For those who are here for the Board of Zoning Appeals and have an appeal before us just to give you kind of a rundown of how it works.

Um, I will read the appeal.

Uh, the city then will present their information, uh, the information they've gotten generally from the property owner and that they themselves have gathered to us as the board.

We will have an opportunity to ask questions of the city that we might have.

Then whomever the property owner is um should I ask you to step forward.

I'll have you step up to the microphone in the middle of the room.

Please make sure, and I'll try to remind you that you state your name and your residential address, um, and then you can give us your remarks.

Let us know any evidence that you have that you want us to hear on your behalf, uh, information that you want to present to us.

We will then, as a board, have an opportunity to question the property owner.

Uh, the city would have an opportunity to question the property owner.

It's a bit of a dialogue at that point in time to make sure that we fully understand what's being asked and what evidence is being presented.

Um, if there is anyone else that is here to speak on behalf of the property owner, they would be called upon next.

And if anybody is here in opposition to the appeal of the property owner, they would also have a right to come up and speak and tell us what their opposition is and explain that to us.

So we have everybody who wants to be on record relative to that appeal on record.

When everyone is done speaking, then we will close the evidentiary testimony part of that discussion, and then we as a board will deliberate here on the microphone in open fashion, so you'll be able to hear our conversation.

We will then render a decision on the appeal itself so you'll have an answer before you leave this afternoon.

So with that, I'm gonna start with ID number 26-03579.

Oh, sorry, the appeal of Eureka and Clifford Weemer.

Is that what I hope I'm getting that right for a dimensional variance from section 22.58 sub 2 sub A sub 2 of the zoning code.

If granted, the variants will allow construction of a new garden shed at 2219 Northview Road with an area of 192 square feet on a property with an attached garage when accessory structure shall not exceed 150 square feet in an area for properties with an attached garage.

Charlie, are you presenting?

Okay.

Yep.

All right.

This is on the south side of Northview Road, about uh maybe about a half mile to the west of uh its intersection with Grandview Boulevard.

Uh as you can see, this is an unusually large property.

Um the it has an area of uh just over or just under one acre, uh 42,800 square feet.

Uh the properties along Patricia Lane, just to the south there are more typical uh 8,000 square foot city lots.

Uh so this is a larger property that was uh developed originally most likely within uh the what was at that time, the town of Peewaukey, uh and then it came into the city.

Um it uh has a currently has a single family home, uh one-story ranch with an attached garage, attached two-car garage, and uh it currently has a an existing shed with an area of 120 square feet.

Um so you can see from this picture the the uh rear yard is um uh quite a large uh yard area.

Um the applicants have stated that they can't fit a uh modern standard uh riding lawn mower uh in their existing shed, and uh so they've had to replace the the doors and the shed itself is uh um kind of deteriorating and it's uh in need of replacement.

Um so they would like to build a new shed uh with an area of 192 square feet.

Uh the code allows uh sheds with a maximum area of 150, so that would be about uh 42 square feet larger than uh than the maximum allowed in the code.

Um and they have stated that again it's it's necessary to have the larger equipment because of the larger yard, and it's necessary to have the uh the larger shed to store that larger equipment that they can't fit it in in a standard shed that's uh under 150 square feet.

Um so one thing to note uh the these are the setback or the this is the distance from the property line uh for the house, it's about 20 feet from either uh either side yard, uh about 80 feet from the street yard uh property line and about 260 feet from the uh rear property line.

Uh the setbacks for the district are 25 feet uh from the street yard, 10 feet from either side yard, uh, and forty feet in the rear.

So in theory, they could uh they could add an additional storage area onto the the house.

They have stated that the uh existing garage is not large enough uh to store to store the equipment in either.

Um however, there is a slope around the house, which would make that uh fairly difficult.

So you can see this photo is from about 20 feet back from the house, there's a pretty significant drop-off there, and then right at the garage, there's a retaining wall uh where it where it meets the neighboring property.

So it would be difficult to add uh a shed or some kind of a storage uh structure onto the house itself.

So this is uh section 22.58 uh specific regulations, which uh states that for garages, garden and utility sheds, uh they are permitted uh with uh the requirement that no more than one accessory building shall be erected on a lot uh where the principal dwelling has an attached garage.

Um where there isn't an attached garage, obviously they're allowed to have a detached garage as well as a shed, but uh when there's just one uh one when there's an attached garage, you're just allowed the one accessory building, and in that case uh it shall not exceed 150 square feet in area.

Questions from the board for the city.

I guess just so we're totally clear.

They could add to the house to get the space they need, or they could put the shed up to 150 square feet.

Yep, they could from the 120 it is now.

Yeah, they could go up to 150 square feet.

They could at least in theory add on to the house, but but like I said, there's a slope that would make that kind of difficult.

Any other questions?

Is that 150 square feet?

150 on each side.

Uh it would be I I think 10 by 15 or 12 by 12, I guess.

Got it.

And that's not big enough, wide enough to fit the equipment they need at the 150?

That yeah, that's what they've stated.

So there.

All right, thank you.

If there is anyone here to speak um on behalf of the weemers or property owners, if you could come forward.

Sorry about the name if you could state your full name and your residential address for the record first.

Of course.

My name is Erica Weimer.

I am at 2219 Northview Road, and don't worry about the pronunciation of that.

So anything that you would like to present, tell us evidence that you have for us.

Sure, thanks for your time.

So I submitted uh quite a lengthy application, but I also have um three letters of support from my immediate neighbors and my neighbor across the street, Gene Wiedman is here as well to speak on behalf of us building a new shed.

So one of the things I do want to um ask, just real quickly, is that this would fall under a variant a dimensional variance request, right?

Not the not the use request that the attorney spoke of.

This would be an area variance, correct.

Thank you.

Um then uh it's not so much that like we have the the 10 by 12 right now.

My husband had to build out the doors on it just to be able to get the it a pretty old lawnmower and the deck size in and out right now.

Um so in order to get a new lawnmower, we were looking for a larger shed with the larger door on it.

So yes, this the storage is is great, but in order to get a larger door frame, that's why we were looking at something more like a 12 by 16 or a um you know a 12 by 12, I guess would work, but the the door sizes that I looked at, I couldn't find that.

I couldn't find something like that.

Um I did submit um something that we were looking at for the shed, um, which is the 12 by 16 that has enough um enough leeway on both sides of the door that we could get this lawnmower and a new one in and out, um, and then of course use it for some of the standard storage that we have in there right now that we just can't fit into the the garage.

Um we can't build onto the house because it's it's a great home in a great neighborhood with great neighbors, but it just would be impossible to kind of build onto the garage uh the way it is right now.

Um other questions that I can help answer, aside from the information that's on the the form.

Otherwise, I can I can leave these letters of support with someone.

I can't.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I do want to also mention that um it and it is it is in that the the form as well, but uh the shed as it is right now is actually closer to about 40 or 50 years old.

One of my neighbors um had submitted in in a letter of support there that um when he grew up in that home when his his parents own the home, uh he actually knows that that shed was there when he was growing up, which actually dates it a long uh much longer than we've owned the home.

Uh we have tried to maintain it at this point, it's beyond its use.

And again, in order to get future use out of that, um we we want to be able to have the the larger storage area so that I can continue to build onto the garden, maybe questions from anyone on the board while we're looking at the I do being the new person.

I'm familiar with the area.

Um the directed basically at staff, given the the history of the area, old town of Peewalkie neighborhood that was annexed to the city a long long time ago.

Does that play into the zoning code?

The uniqueness of our zoning code, given the fact that those lots were all kinds of different sizes and there along Northview Road there, along that part of Grandview Walmart.

There's all kinds of different sizes of different lots and homes and things like that.

How does that play into this?

Well, uh currently, in the current code, the there's just a universal standard for any uh any property that uh that has you know that wants to have a shed, it's you can't go any bigger than 150 square feet.

That is something that uh you know we have our our zoning code update that we're working on, um and that is likely going to be uh changed uh to allow somewhat larger, you know.

There, you know, we have recognize that there might be um cases where where people need more storage, uh but as of right now uh the the code doesn't really differentiate between the larger and the smaller lots.

It's just everybody has 150 square feet.

So uh just for clarification, Charlie, when the new zoning code comes out, it's a possibility that a larger uh shed would be allowable.

Yeah.

Okay.

And we're uh projecting that code is gonna be finalized in the fall, is that correct?

Um the hope is that it'll be approved in July at this point.

Uh and then it would be going to effect in September.

Okay.

Thank you.

That brings up a question.

How soon were you guys looking to have this construction done?

This summer.

The summer.

Yeah.

And there's a there's typically a a lead time to order a shed and find somebody to install it.

So this is a prefab as well, then something that's already.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't want to, I I don't want anybody to have to build that from the ground up, but yeah.

Yeah, and I I apologize if you mentioned that you had submitted some uh something extra.

I didn't see uh I didn't see it in the submission, so maybe it didn't get into it in the attachment.

Sure.

Do you need this?

Uh if you have, yeah, that's like you have like a larger uh I think there's I had the attachments that you had already shown, like the pictures and everything.

Did you have that already?

Yeah, I think so.

Okay.

Thank you.

So you've had the shed for 22 years.

We've been in the house for that long.

The shed existed before we moved in, yes.

Um, I guess my question is why it's worked for 22 years, but why you need something bigger now?

What would hardship the one the it's the the doorway?

Um, so we have to we had to expand it already.

Um thank you.

So the the doorway, um, in order to like get a new lawnmower, we'd need a new doorway, and the you know, eventually we're gonna need to get a new lawnmower with a wider deck on it.

Um so that's one part of it.

The other part is that it's it's just dilapidated and and falling apart, and so it's an eye sore to look at.

So we're just trying to modify something, get a little bit more um I I guess I don't technically need the storage, it's more about the door size.

Um, but it would be nice to be able to take out some of the garden stuff that we have in the garage and put it in the the storage unit.

But for right now, it's really about the the size of the door.

Um the reinforced flooring in the shed right now, that's pretty pretty wobbly, and so with a prefab unit like Mr.

Reddick was talking about, um, it's got the reinforced flooring in it as well.

Some of the smaller units don't have that kind of um uh flooring in it, it's not reinforced like this kind of a shed would be and you could build a shed, you understand up to 150 square feet without needing any kind of a variance that would be allowed under the zoning codes.

Yeah, I do.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

You're not sure.

Charlie, could I see that map again of the properties?

Yeah.

Uh this one?

Yes.

We're looking at 2219, right?

You have 2205 highlights.

Yeah, sorry.

No, that's okay.

I just wanted to make sure I was looking at the right one.

The area is roughly the same.

Thanks.

Yep.

Any other questions for the property owner?

You said you had somebody else that wanted to speak on your main.

If you could just come up, make sure you state your full name and your residential address, please.

My name is Jean Wideman.

I live at 2222 Northview Road, acros across the street, the north side of the street.

And my driveway faces their house.

Beautiful house, beautiful walls, but and there are all of our properties are so big that riding lawnmowers are really the thing that we have to use.

And partially because as you saw in their picture, the of their backyard, they slope.

They slope down.

Mine does it on the other side of the street, also.

And to actually try and build onto a garage would be nearly impossible for just about any of us in that property in that area.

So for them to need a bigger shed, which quite frankly, the one they've got needs to come down.

It doesn't look safe.

Um with the sizes of the lawnmowers that are coming through, and to get their garden stuff in there because they have the most beautiful garden, and they got to have all of the implements for it.

So I just wanted to let you know we don't it doesn't matter to us if they do it.

Because I've talked to all of them.

So they need it for making sure that their property stays beautiful, which is what we all want.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for anyone on the board?

Um I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this.

But I'm gonna ask anyways, what are the restrictions?

Is it just one shed per property in the backyard then?

Like do the 150 and then have a smaller adjacent for currently it's just one.

Okay.

It's uh if you so it's one accessory accessory building uh on a property that has an attached garage.

If you don't have an attached garage, you can have a second one, but that's you know, the intention is that that would be your detached garage, and then you can have a shed.

Got it.

You mentioned that earlier.

Just wanted to clarify.

All right, if nothing further, then we'll close that portion of this appeal and we will talk amongst ourselves on the record.

I mean, I think we just I don't know that there's any hardship they can build a hundred and fifty square foot shed.

And I can't get the word exceptional out of my mind because I know the area really well.

Um that's why I asked the question about the the town and everything.

Uh and then hearing that there might be a zoning change coming that might be more favorable.

I I'm stuck, but I knew, so I need your guidance as well when I want to hear some what goes on.

Um I think at the end of the day, 150 square feet is gonna be more than sufficient.

Sounds like you're gonna have to modify the doors to get in and out with two moors, if I'm understanding you correctly.

Um I don't see a hardship that's substantial enough to go against the the letter of the law on this one, so yeah.

I I think there are some except exceptional circumstances in the size of the lot.

Uh that's uh of almost a full acre is quite unusual for any city property, but I agree with uh the other uh comments that I I don't see an undue hardship here, especially uh with our new zoning codes coming.

Um you may have the option of building that larger shed if you wait a month or two.

Um so I don't I'm leaning toward not being able to grant this one because of the same reasons, which it's not a severe unusual hardship.

And there's nothing particularly unique to this property.

I mean, yes, it's big, but big when they bought it and it's comparable in size to the ones next to it, at least several of them.

Um so this particular property doesn't have anything unique to it.

Um but I my bigger thing is I don't see building a hundred and fifty square foot shed versus a hundred and ninety-two square foot shed as really being a hardship that you need that extra 42 square feet.

Yeah, anything to add?

I really hope the city does make changes to the code to allow something in rare cases, but right now I don't uh see anything that says we can give a variance.

And this size shed has worked for 22 years, and nothing's really changed.

And nothing's really changed.

Any other comments by anyone?

Do you want to go through the findings?

We need to go through the findings.

Finally opportunity.

No, not anymore.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right.

You want to go through the findings of that?

Yes.

Okay.

So this is the appeal of uh Eriker and Clifford Weimer for a dimensional variance from section 22.58 to A2 of the zoning code.

You've granted the variance will allow construction of a new garden shed at 2219 Northview Road within an area of 192 square feet on a property with an attached garage when extract accessory structures shall not exceed 150 square feet in area for properties with an attached garage.

Finding one that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or classes of uses in the same zoning district Eric Don's descent.

Christy D'Angelo Descent.

Timothy Reddick descent.

Tim Nick's refer.

All right.

Eric Dunn's descent.

Christy D'Angelo Descent.

Timothy Reddick descent.

Kevin Rayleigh descent.

Tim Nickitch descent.

All right.

That a variance is not being requested solely on the basis of economic gain or loss, and that self-imposed hardships are not being considered as grounds for granting of a variance.

Christy D'Angelo affirm.

Tim Reddick affirm.

Kevin Riley affirm.

Tim Nickettch affirm and that the authorizing of such variants will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of the zoning code or public interest.

A firm.

Christy Angelo affirm.

Tim Riddick affirm.

Kevin Riley affirmed.

Tim Nick firm.

All right.

So the finding one was uh one to four, and then finding two was zero to five, and the other two were uh all of them.

So I'm gonna make a motion that we deny the appeal for the dimensional variance for 2219 Northview Road.

I'll suck Eric Dunn's second.

All those in favor?

I anyone opposed.

Aye.

So the appeal has been denied.

Um the variance is not granted.

However, I'd keep an eye on the zoning code updates.

All right.

To the next appeal, it is ID number 26-03711.

The appeal of Jeff Trost for a dimensional variance from section 22.58 sub one sub B of the zoning code.

If granted, the variance will allow construction of a shed in the street yard at 3100 Engler Drive when detached accessory structures shall be permitted in the rear yard only, not in a street or side yard.

All right.

Uh so 3100 Angular Drive is at the intersection of Angler Drive and Creekside Drive.

Uh this is on the very far uh south side of the city in the river's crossing subdivision.

Um, as you can see, there's a large uh undeveloped property to the west.

Uh so Engler Drive uh really only serves about eight uh eight houses to the west of the uh the property currently.

Um and then uh to the north is an undeveloped property which is in the village of Waukeshaw.

So the red lines on this map uh are the uh the city boundary.

Um that property uh I believe was originally intended to connect uh and and continue the housing, uh but with the village uh having incorporated uh it is much less less likely that that will be possible.

Uh so it's possible that Creekside Drive will never be extended.

Um so as you can see, uh the property is set uh back a good ways from both uh Creekside Drive and Engler Drive.

Um, and then it it uh again creekside dead ends into uh Englar there.

Uh here is uh uh street level of the property.

Uh this is uh similar uh one-story uh ranch style house with an attached garage, and uh the applicant would like to put the shed in the the uh the side yard there.

Um so there's the view down Angler or down, yeah, down Angler Drive.

Uh so here's the location that he's uh uh hoping to propose.

He has the uh you can see the house uh this in this survey uh with the um potential location if a variance is not approved, uh and then this uh red box is where where the applicant would like to put the shed uh in the street yard facing towards Creekside Drive, uh lining up pretty closely with the uh with the rear line of the house.

And as uh the applicant has noted, uh there's a pretty steep slope uh which which starts uh about uh 10 feet back from the house and extends into uh culvert at at the rear of the property and then ultimately into a creek behind it.

Um it starts about 15 feet back from the house.

Uh so it would be possible to fit the shed uh in the uh in the rear yard, uh, but it would pretty significantly increase uh the cost uh related to grading uh and other uh other necessary uh uh changes that would have to be made to fit it there.

So here's the rear of the property.

You can see the the slope that drops off towards the uh towards the the back.

Uh if the shed was going to be in the rear, it would have to be set back at least five feet from the uh from the house, and also there's uh a patio there that the applicant would not want to put the shed in.

Um so here's the the rear yard.

I don't believe that that bear patch uh is the location that uh the shed would go in, otherwise uh it would be further further towards the other side of the the house, uh but it would be partially in into this sloped area.

And then here is uh he's staked out uh some red flags showing uh where the location of the shed would be.

It might be a little bit difficult to see in that picture, but you can see uh where the where the proposed location is.

Uh the shed would be a standard 10 by 15, 150 square foot shed uh with vinyl siding and uh one large uh entrance door as well as uh windows on the right and the rear elevations, and then a smaller door on the left elevation.

Uh and then he's there's a wall section which uh you can note the uh potential uh increase uh for the footing uh with the slope depending on the location.

Uh he did provide a uh an estimate for the cost of the work, um the difference between uh the between the the site work that will be required uh if it's in the rear yard and the side yard is about 13,000 square feet.

So it'd be 23,000 dollars for site work if it has to go in the the rear yard to add in the uh the footing for the slope, and it would be about 10,000 if it's not.

So this is uh um 22.58 uh accessory use regulations, and this is the general regulation section, which states that accessory uses and detached accessory structures shall be permitted in the rear yard only, not in a street yard or side yard, unless otherwise specified.

Questions from the board or the city.

Uh do we know uh the projection on that that street that at one time was going to be going through at Creekside Drive?

Yeah.

It sounds unlikely that that street will ever be uh Yeah, it would it would basically in order for it to be for that property to develop as a city property, the village would have to agree to allow it to be uh detached from the village and then attached to the city uh the current administration in the village of Walkershaw has basically any uh any request to detach properties they've they've flatly denied.

Um it could potentially develop in the village, but uh it wouldn't be able to have city water in that case, so it'd have to be a very uh very um not a not a dense development, not not at the same density as the city development would be, and most likely in that case there wouldn't be any uh there wouldn't be any attachment of that street.

administration in the village of Waxesha has basically any uh any request to detach properties they've they've flatly denied um it could potentially develop in the village but I wouldn't be able to have city water in that case so it'd have to be a very uh very um not a not a dense development not not at the same density as the city development would be and most likely in that case there wouldn't be any there wouldn't be any attachment of that street okay so just uh clarify basically you've got a we've got a dead end uh street that's probably just has no future for the foreseeable future anyway right there yeah there's no no way to predict what could happen in the long term but uh ultimately as of right now it doesn't seem like it's likely okay thank you do you have an aerial view of this area or no yeah um so this is just the close up of the property itself and then further out no the other one is good this uh this one yeah okay thank you the original plan was to have probably creeks drive connect with still water at some point probably that was the intention yeah and then connect into whatever would have been built there all right any other questions all right if there is anyone here to speak on behalf of Jeff Trust you could just remember to state your name and your residential address when you get up to the microphone please sure my name is Jeff Trost Trust thank you sounds like frost but you know and I live at 3100 Engler Drive and I moved there in February any information that you would like for us well so we we've talked about the money cost for the foundation that's not the biggest part of it.

The biggest issue is where to put it crowds the back of the house and if I put a shed closer to the house it blocks the window for the sunlight coming in from the windows on the back of the house so behind the house becomes very problematic from both an aesthetic and as well as uh a narrow property because it is pretty narrow back there.

The property is unique in that I've got a culvert on the one side for the end of creekside that's never going to go through but there's a deep culvert there so it actually drops about four and a half to five feet from where my house is down into that culvert and it starts at about 16 feet and then it takes an inflection and go down much harder so so it's a different it's fun to mow it means you have to crab angle your lawnmower to mow up it you know so it's a little challenging.

So that's like that I can see that they took the pictures probably a couple of days ago from the backyard because I was just digging into my tomatoes in.

So uh and I hit the and the posts aren't up there for the fence.

So any case it is a it's difficult to build back there.

I need to have a shed there's not enough room in a two-car garage for two cars as well as all the equipment you need in Wisconsin.

I'm getting older I need to go to a riding lawnmower I can't push the lawnmower around for much more time um so I need a riding lawn more for I need room for that I've got a regular mower but even um you know snowblowers and uh shovels and garden rakes and all this stuff that my garage is packed out on one side completely.

So there's just not enough room there so I need to build some sort of shed I'm trying to make it so the shed looks best on the property so it has architecture it looks good um uh also without in hint in impinging upon the amount of light that comes into the house is kind of a dark house so thank you okay all right any questions for our um Jeff do you get uh we've had some pretty severe rains the last year had does that area fill up with water in the back yeah I was here when I got in we had uh the big windstorm that knocked out the power and then we had all those storms after that where it rained pretty hard and it fills out the culvert ditch it probably came out about 30 feet but it was only about this deep from the culvert ditch so it's not like it fills out the culvert ditch but the yard goes the culvert ditch then it goes up a little bit then it goes into the wetlands because there's wetlands behind there it's really a drainage canal for the pond that's uh behind the houses across creekside so I'm imagining you couldn't you couldn't build all the way there's a certain point where you couldn't build two which is gonna uh interfere with drainage yeah there's a 25 foot uh right of way for that drainage canal so about you know the I mean I've got a lot of room behind that's like 57 feet from the back of the house to the back property line um but of that only about 16 is usable on the backyard because it goes to the drainage ditch and then it goes into the wetlands so basically how far out from the house if you were to build a shed in the backyard could you go before your uh wouldn't probably would be in that flood plain into the inflection probably well I'm not sure if it goes in the floodplain but it's uh the inflection is about 16 feet out okay so I can go out at about 16 feet but then I have to uh again the yeah the inflection is like 16 feet out and I can't go much further than that with a property um because it would then start to get into the into that culvert ditch and the right of way I guess thank you Jeff that was my question thank you Kev

It's the inflection, probably well, I'm not sure if it goes in the floodplain, but it's uh the inflection is about 16 feet out okay, so I can go out at about 16 feet, but then I have to uh again the yeah, the inflection is like 16 feet out, and I can't go much further than that with a property um because it would then start to get into the culvert ditch in the right of way, I guess.

Thank you, Jeff.

That was my question.

No, thank you, Kev.

I'm also very interested in that new legislation of bigger ones, you know.

Yeah, I kept it to 10 by 15 for that, so Charlie.

Uh does the uh new zoning codes, does it have any changes in side yard uh structures or um not really does, but it still wouldn't allow them in a street yard.

So it's I think the uh the drafts of the code would allow it up to the front line of a house where there's an internal side yard.

Oh the other side.

Yeah, but not uh not in the street yard.

Okay, thank you, Charlie.

Any other questions?

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

I do have a quick question, I guess.

Um it looks like if you rotated the shed fifty you know 90 degrees, it would fit in that 16 feet.

Yeah, but then that completely blocks the bedroom window.

It goes from from the corner of the house to that, I guess if you look at the back, I'm sorry, all the mess in my backyard, but if you go to the far corner of that house where the where the gutter line comes down, that window is about 10 feet from the corner of the house there.

So even the 10-foot shed will have some be able to see it pretty easily from the window.

Um just for clarification, why would you need to put it in front of behind the house when you have all that room on the other side?

Yeah, well, that would be my question, but uh I don't have I can't go I have to put it behind the my understanding is I have to put it behind the the the rear oh the footprint side to side on Angler.

So otherwise, I mean I have no problem getting it to be behind the back foundation line.

That would actually fit on that side.

This is more approximate to where I want to put it.

I have to talk to Charlie a little bit and my contractor about where they would think a best site is to put it back there.

But I would want to push it back as far as I can.

So the front of it would be behind the the line of the back of the house.

Yeah, Charlie, could he right now he he wants it on the the side of the house, but if he were to back it up in the same geographic location, you mean to move it further over uh toward the backyard?

Uh toward like to the west, I guess, or to the left on this uh on this.

Yeah, he did he he's got enough room on the that's got all the back side yard to move the the shed farther.

He just needs to get it behind the house, right?

Yeah, it needs to be behind the house.

Uh but it doesn't need to be yes.

It could be on the side behind the house.

It it would need to be five feet from any lot line in that so it would that side yet side lot line on the west side there are the whatever the angle is on the actual street uh on the that inside it could be shifted from that where the yellow uh box is here, it could be shifted over to uh five feet.

So it looks like there's about 13 feet to the edge of the house.

So it would be uh it would be I guess just the corner would be overhanging.

Okay.

So where that's right, where that yellow box is you could move it to the left?

Yeah, as long as it doesn't go.

That goes also into some slows down again.

It starts to slope down there because the drainage line between Eric's house on that side of the property.

Try and see if you can see from yeah, you can see the utility units there.

Those are uh my neighbor's Eric's yard.

My yard ends before those boxes.

I bought it in February.

Okay.

We're we're we're back in we've been gone for about 25 years from Wisconsin, but my wife had a fall and we came back to be by family.

So and so that's what we ended up here.

I have a brother who's about 10 minutes away from me.

So the other questions.

Again, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff.

All right.

Now we are close that again portion of this appeal talk as a board.

Um looking at the the decision form that kind of came out whether or not there is an unnecessary hardship.

That would unreasonably prevent permitted use of the property or render conformity with the zoning codes unnecessarily burdensome.

I guess the I don't know.

It might I don't know that it's a fundamental right to be able to build a shed on your property.

I don't know that that's necessarily a hardship, I guess, in my perspective, but I think the hardship is the uh the way the land itself slopes and the fact that it collects water.

I think that's the hardship that I that I see in place.

So I don't know if it necessarily is difficult, but it still can be done.

True.

And it's not unique to this particular property.

I mean, there's a whole properties.

The financial hardship, well, the entire row is dealing with the same thing, but as we look, I don't see any sheds behind anyone else's.

Right, because maybe they can't build them because this isn't a property that's going to allow for it.

I understand.

Our decision was set a precedence then.

Yeah, I guess.

Any other um comments?

We should talk about it.

I'm not gonna completely clear whether looking at the picture we've got right here.

No, he wants to put the shed uh these four corners on the on the side of the house.

No, where the orange flags are with the orange flags.

Yeah, flags and the the problem is is there's a unused uh possibly never used street that fronts that yeah, this is from the creekside drive sidewalk.

Yeah, correct.

That's not really our question though.

Well, we don't get to decide based upon maybe this street will go through at some point and maybe it won't.

Right.

It's a street yard.

Okay.

Unless somebody comes in and tells us it's not okay.

Then I agree with Tim that there's an I I can't see back in that shed up deeper down that culvert that needs that needs to have free flowing.

I I don't think you could build in there just because you'd be impeding the uh the drainage, but anyway.

I think in this picture the drainage actually goes at the right.

And he says it fills up and then follows over into the marshy area back there.

Okay.

I guess yeah.

Is it possible to push it back another three feet in the current position that it's that is that you're requesting in that side street yard?

Could it go back?

Like how far, how much further back could you go before you have to put a footing in it?

I is my question.

Um I I I can put it back on the side yard.

I can put it back pretty far because it's pretty flat because of the street that was put in.

Um, and that was what uh I probably need to talk to make sure I'm following what all the setback is for the back of the yard and for the side lots and stuff, which Charlie, did I hear you correctly when he asked the question that if we go backwards to the rear of the house and where he wants to put it at, right?

Where he's flagged out if we go back, yep, right there.

If we go backwards another four feet or so, which seems like we can do that without adding the footing, that that would be considered rear yard and not street yard, then uh no, that in that location it would still be street.

So that that location, I yeah, maybe you should have uh done a kind of a slide showing which what is the street yard.

Uh the street yard would extend it's basically to the right.

Yeah, it will it's it's just straight back from the house along the whole creekside drive side there.

So it you know, this is the side of the line of the house would be going straight back.

So everything here is the street yard, and then everything in the front is the angler drive street yard.

And there's no ordinance for putting in herbividors or something to block it from street view.

Uh there would, yeah, there's not an exception for if there's a you know, if there that that would be something you could you could make a condition.

Um it might not be enforceable, but you could request that as a you know, if you were gonna grant a variance, you could say we feel that this will be a uh uh detrimental to the the surrounding area if it's just a shed there, but uh if you if there's landscaping to screen it, then it it would not be, you know, so that you could make that sort of a condition.

Because the whole point of not having it in street view is the view of it from the street, correct?

Right.

Okay.

I'm sorry, understand that.

But it it's the it's the uh appearance from the street if there's a shed in the in the street.

Oh okay.

That's why it's not a prefab shed, that's why it's a nice looking shed, so it's a good looking building.

Sure, but it would still be visible from the street view.

It's still gonna be the problem.

Even if I put it behind the house, it would be visible from the street.

Right?

True, but it would be in ordinance, it will be inside of the letter of the law behind that.

Yeah, it's just it's just because the slope and it's it it becomes a problem of egress and ingr ingress and egress from the sh from the shed.

I can't get into it from the downslope side of it.

I would have to, there's no lawnmower that's gonna drive up that way, so I'd have to put the big doors on the side towards the house, which means I have to have a far enough away from the house that I can drive my garden tractor up there and then turn it 90 degrees to go into the shed.

That's the information so that's that becomes more challenging because of that.

Okay.

Any other thoughts that street that we're uh hung up on uh we have there's no clue whether it is or whether it isn't it's in the city of Walkershaw, correct?

So is it's in the city of Walkershaw, and it's technically a dead end street.

The city doesn't have any plans at this point in time.

It could be 20 years, it could be for never.

It could be never yeah, right.

So there's that word again, exceptional.

Like even though even though I see the the idea of the side yard, it's exceptional on the fact that it's the last property on a street that will never be that got paved and got started, but is just a turnaround now.

So I'm I'm stuck.

I thought even set up as a turnaround, it's a dead end.

Well, currently what what's happened is uh you're on a corner lot.

Yeah, even though functionally and for all realistic per purposes, it's not a corner lot.

Um and as someone who's owned corner lots many, many times in my life, all that extra shoveling and uh and the setbacks basically give you very, very tiny backyards because both sides of your both sides of your house are considered street.

And unfortunately, because you bought the property as a corner lot, I know it functionally you should put the shed on the side exactly where you want it, but it's technically a corner lot with two street two streets.

So I don't know if we're able to grant it.

So I I although I I feel for you.

Yeah, I like I said, I I bought the lot, I didn't see it personally.

I can't, I under and I not knowing we walk shark code, I didn't know that you could build in the side yard.

I looked at it and said, oh my god, look at that huge side space, you know.

You could do stuff with that, but I I didn't see it personally.

I couldn't.

I'm taking care of my disabled son Jeffrey.

Yeah, my wife's in the hospital, and and I'm swamped and I'm trying to get back to Wisconsin to, you know, to be able to be by family so I can get some help, you know.

So when I saw the lot, I said, okay, it's a nice house, it's the right size for me.

It's close to my my brother, so if there's an emergency, I have somebody to help come by.

So that's why I bought the lot.

I didn't there's no recognition.

I don't know how I'd know from North Carolina that Walkersha doesn't allow you to build on the side yard.

It's otherwise it's just a big huge grass space.

I I agree it would be the logical place to put a shed.

But I I'm not sure our board is able to grant the appeal on that case.

I'm just saying it's a hardship to build it right behind the house without making it look terrible.

So that's that's the hardship is that it'll look terrible, it'll be behind the house, but it'll look terrible and it'll be crowded back there.

And it'll block agreed.

Thank you, Jeff.

Thank you.

Sorry, I'm just looking to see if we were in deliberation, right?

Yeah, yeah, okay.

We were.

I think um I think it becomes a safety issue to have it behind the house for it's not the question for us though.

I think um I think it becomes a safety issue to have it behind the house for it's not the question for us, though.

We don't get to decide that.

Fair enough.

I think the question for me that I'm struggling with, and I'm trying to see if there's anything in what we receive, and some of the information we received is what is what is a permitted use of a property, or what constitutes reasonable use of the property.

Because if it's unnecessarily burdensome, and strict compliance would unreasonably prevent a permitted use of the property, then I think that can be seen as an unnecessary hardship.

I just don't know that a shed is just because you own a property, you get to put a shed on it.

I don't know that that's the correct conclusion to draw, and that's I'm just looking that up.

You can put a shed on it, it's just may not look good or may be costly and difficult, but in the location that he wants it.

Yeah.

Any other discussion?

Yeah, and my my thing is is we can't predict when or if that street and there would be other homeowners that uh would be impacted then if that shed is on the front of the street.

Right.

Any other discussion questions?

No.

No.

All right.

So I think we have decision.

Are we ready to go through the findings?

Yes.

All right.

All right.

Uh so this is the appeal of Jeff Trost for a dimensional variance from section 22.581B of the zoning code.

If granted, the variance will allow construction of a shed in the street yard at 3100 angler drive when detached accessory structures shall be permitted in the rear yard only, not in street yards or side yards.

Uh finding one that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question, or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or classes of uses in the same zoning district.

Christy D'Angelo Descent.

Tim Reddick dissent.

Kevin Riley, affirm.

Tim Nick is affirm.

All right.

Uh finding two that such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity.

Christy D'Angelo Descent.

Tim Reddick dissent.

Kevin Riley dissent.

Tim Nickitz dissent.

All right.

Uh finding three that a variance is not being requested solely on the basis of economic gain or loss, and that self-imposed hardships are not being considered as grounds for the granting of variance.

Eric Dunstaffirm.

Christy D'Angelo affirm.

Tim Reddick affirm.

Kevin Rayleigh affirm.

Tim Neckich affirm.

And finding four, that the authorizing of such variants will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of the zoning code or public interest.

Eric Dunn's dissent.

Christy D'Angelo Descent.

Tim Reddick dissent.

Kevin Riley dissent.

Tim Nick's dissent.

All right.

So finding one was two to three against, and then two and five were zero to five against, and three was five nothing or four.

So based upon those findings, I am going to make a motion that the appeal for the dimensional variance at 3100 Engler Drive be denied.

Eric Dunn's second field motion.

All those in favor?

Any opposed.

Sorry about that.

Thank you for coming in.

What's next steps if I disagree with you?

You can appeal it to the circuit court.

Um I don't know the process of that exactly, but you guys are killing me though.

It's dangerous to have the shed back there.

I've got to have a shed.

I don't have room for my car, so I can't leave it on the winter here.

And putting that shed in that side will have entrances that will be way above the ground.

And uh will be dangerous for me.

I I'm sorry, our job is to uphold the letter of the law in the zoning code, and that's all we can do.

I actually know zoning code is also supposed to be watching members.

Thank you.

All right.

ID number 26-3.

I'm sorry, 03712, the appeal of Brett Sturgewald for a dimensional variance from section 22.58 sub 2 sub I sub-3 sub-C of the zoning code.

If granted, the variants will allow construction of a solid fence at 240 Douglas Avenue in the street yard fronting the street.

That is the property's address when solid fences are allowed inside yards and rear yards only.

Alright, so this is actually Douglas Drive.

So that's uh written incorrectly there.

I don't think that's a big enough uh change to I I think that's okay to leave it that way, but we should just note that I guess.

Okay, thank you.

Uh so this is uh oh, it is Douglas Avenue.

I'm sorry.

Oh incorrect uh uh in the way I had written in the presentation.

So it's 240 Douglas Avenue.

Um this is at the corner of Douglas Avenue and Grand Avenue.

Uh and as you can see, this is uh in the central city where um the lots are are tend to be narrower and uh um tend to be narrower facing the street that they're addressed on.

Um so most of the lots on Douglas Drive are narrow are roughly 50, 40 to 50 foot lots, and then the ones on Grand Avenue are uh are similar uh facing towards Grand Avenue.

Uh 240 Douglas Drive has its address on Douglas Douglas Avenue, sorry, um, and its front entrance on Douglas Avenue.

Uh, but it the lot is oriented uh so that it it's uh similar to the ones that are uh facing Grand.

Uh so it does have a street yard that's that's uh a setback that's similar to the setbacks along Grand Avenue, um, and then it has a smaller, smaller setbacks uh along Douglas uh Avenue.

So it's about 16 feet from Douglas Avenue, so it's non-conforming in that regard.

Uh and then also it has a very small rear yard, which is non-conforming as well.

Uh it has a uh a larger yard uh facing towards the uh the alley uh along along the rear there.

Um that is serves the function as the the rear yard of the house, and then this yard facing towards Grand is smaller and has a little bit of a slope.

And then this is the the rear yard, it's about six feet from uh the rear of the house to the rear property line.

So it's also non-conforming in that regard.

Uh normally uh a rear yard setback is in the district is uh 40 feet.

Um so the the code for uh for fences for properties that have uh properties that have a that has have two uh street yards, so either corner lots or uh lots that uh have frontages uh that have a frontage on a rear facing yard.

Uh the code does allow solid fences in the street yard, uh which the property is not addressed on.

Uh so the idea behind that is to allow it uh in to have a functional rear yard in cases uh where there is a uh where there is a where there isn't a large rear yard uh existing behind the house to allow there to be a fenced in area that would that would serve that purpose.

Uh it's allowed with uh with vision triangles for driveways and alleys, and then also a setback of at least one foot from the sidewalk.

Uh so this is from the code.

Uh there's a diagram to show how that'll work.

So the the in the upper right there uh that's circled is is the example that would apply in this case.

Um normally the address uh for the house would be uh on the street that the smaller yard is facing towards uh or would be on a functional uh uh street yard.

So the applicant has uh sort of argued in this case that that uh uh that yard closer to the uh the alley is the functional rear yard, even though the house is uh facing towards uh towards Douglas Avenue and has an address on it.

Uh so this is what would be allowed uh based on the current code.

Uh the the applicant would be allowed a uh a privacy fence that's the red the red fence in this uh in the street yard facing uh facing Grand Avenue, and then also in a large portion of that yard uh around the house.

Uh the applicant would like to build a fence that would extend into the street yard along Douglas Avenue.

Um it would extend out from the uh the east side of the house uh to not quite uh uh meeting up with the the street, it would be set back a couple feet from the street from the sidewalk there, and then would also have a vision triangle uh cut out at the corner uh at the alley.

Um and it would extend back and fence in that whole section of the the yard that is uh between the building and uh and the alley.

The applicant has stated that he would like to use uh this yard uh as an area for uh for uh dog is a dog to uh have an a run outside the house.

Um the proposed fence would be a standard wood wood fence, uh solid wood fence uh with a height of six feet, as you can see here.

Uh the interior side of the fence would have to face in.

Uh, but uh that would be a fence that would be allowed um in rear yards for uh in most lots throughout the city.

So uh in this case, the uh regulation is again from 22.58 accessory use regulations.

Uh and this is again in specific regulations, which allows fences uh in residential districts, uh solid fences in residential districts, um, and specifically on residential lots having two street frontages.

Uh for example, the corner lot or lot having street frontage at both the front and the rear.

Solid fences are allowed in side yards and rear yards, and for purposes of this subsection, only the yard fronting the street that is the property's address is demon deemed to be a street yard.

Uh solid fences are permitted in the yard fronting a street that is not the property's address.

Questions from the board.

I side one.

On the street yard side of the property.

So there could be a four-foot-high decorative fence.

Yes.

Okay.

Would that include like a chain link fence?

Is that considered decorative or no?

Technically, because the code is currently worded badly, yes.

Okay.

So even though it's not very decorative.

Yeah.

So there is a way to like at least fence that area off.

Right.

And still be within the code.

It just wouldn't be solid and six feet high.

Exactly.

Okay.

Any other questions for anyone?

Anyone?

I'm I'm just a little bit confused.

What is the uh the current uh thing you have up here right now is what they're proposing.

This is what would be allowed.

Uh so they would be allowed to put a fence in the the street yard facing Grand Avenue, uh, because that's that's the one that the house is not addressed on.

Um so that's the where the red uh that Grand Avenue is is over here, is on the left side of this uh this area photo, and then Douglas is on the bottom.

Uh they would be allowed to put a street yard there if they wanted to.

Uh the request is to put it in the street yard, uh, basically between the house and the alley uh facing Douglas Drive instead of instead of the uh it wouldn't be along Grand Avenue.

So that one that street yard would be uh would be left without a fence, and then the feet the street yard facing Douglas Avenue uh would have uh would have a fence, would have the solid fence in it.

So basically a picture that's up now if you rotate it now is counterclockwise will match your other picture.

Yeah, exactly.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the city?

All right.

If there is here someone here to speak on behalf of Brett Sturgewald, assuming that's you again state your name, please, and your residential address.

And then uh my name is Brett Steggerwald.

I live at 240 Douglas Avenue.

Great, go ahead.

Anything you want to share with us?

Yeah, so I I wrote something out.

Um just bear with me.

So I'm respectfully requesting a variance to the side yard uh fencing specific to my address at 240 Douglas Avenue.

Um I'm requesting a dimensional variance to allow fence extension closer to the sidewalk uh along my side yard due to the unique layout and positioning of my yard.

Um my property does not have a traditional usage backyard like neighboring properties.

Um this creates a hardship that is specific to my property and limits my ability to reasonably enjoy and utilize my yard space.

With what I currently am allowed to do, it's basically taking a third of my side yard.

And if you can see on the red, between the red and the blue, it's taking a third, and I can't have a six-foot fencer.

I need that for training and being able to maintain the security of my canine.

Questions?

You're saying that a four-foot decorative fence if if I'm getting a German Shepherd, that thing's going right over the top.

Can you go to the picture that shows like the actual property?

There, thank you.

So from my understanding, like when I tried to originally read this, looking at those diagrams made no sense.

I sent it to my contractor, my contractor came out and said, Yeah, we can go up to, we'll put it offset from the sidewalk a couple feet, we'll be good.

Sent it to the city.

They said, No, I can only more or less go up to it's basically the house line, from what I'm understanding.

That takes 15 feet away of my only usable sideslash backyard to use as privacy.

And having the space for training the K9, is that a requirement to become a K9?

It's just something it's always like upkeep.

You got to make sure they're on point.

Um we do K9 training at the Academy at in Milwaukee, but we also do it at home.

Do you have an aerial view of this neighborhood?

And other than it would be a problem having wait, or it's unfortunate to have basically two backyards, but why not fence in the left side as well then?

It's sloped, it is gradually sloped.

Um it's it's basically from I have uh if you could zoom in again one more time, please.

I have uh like a cement staircase in the back from there to my neighbor's property, it's less than six feet.

I have no room back there.

What about the side that comes out to Grand Avenue though?

The side to Grand, it is sloped to down.

Maybe you would know it just question.

If my address was a grand av address, then what I would be asking would be perfectly fine.

That's right, yeah.

Okay.

And it's sort of it's the lot is sort of it's orange.

I was very confused when I got the denial ladder, because I'm looking at my neighbor across the street that has the exact same setup, and it's their, I guess, front door is facing grand.

And they have the fencing that I'm looking for.

Okay.

Can you just clarify that one more time, Charlie?

If his address were on the other side of the house, then this would be completely uh acceptable under our code.

Yeah, the the uh the code was kind of written with that in mind.

We had a four or five years ago we had a case where um a neighbor was denied a variance in the street yards and then reported every single neighbor, and you know, to try and uh make the point that uh a lot of people have fences in street yards uh and corner lots.

Um and the code was written with with the intention of allowing corner lots to have uh to have a functional rear yard, you know, a functional private yard uh with the idea that that there would be one uh street yard where the that's functionally the front of the house.

So in this case, the lot is kind of it's oriented, the lot is oriented where the front yard is uh towards grand, the what would seem to be the functional front yard is is towards Grand Avenue, uh, but the entrance to the house is oriented towards Douglas, so it's addressed that way.

Are there any other properties in this immediate vicinity that have the same kind of like strange orientation?

It doesn't look like it.

Uh looks like they're all uh there might possibly one uh the block to the north, but it it's hard to see what the orientation is there.

And as you think, so the street the house across the street, because it's addressed on grand has a large essentially backyard right across Grand Avenue.

Yep, that one that's there.

That one is literally just put in like a week ago.

Any other questions for city or the property owner?

Oh right.

I appreciate your guys' time.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak on this appeal?

All right, then we'll close that and we can talk amongst ourselves.

I feel uh pretty clear that the only reason this gentleman isn't able to have a fence is because his address is on one side of his house than another, and I feel that's pretty unusual circumstance and that uh it's pretty much impinging on his ability to enjoy his property isn't other homeowners in the city just because he was addressed on one street rather than another.

I would have to agree with that.

Yeah, that's why I was I guess why I was asking the questions about are there other properties like in the area that have this sort of unfortunate addressed on one street when really you were just being addressed on the other street, you'd have a whole backyard.

House across from him doesn't have these restrictions on it and was able to build the fence similar to what he's building, so I do see that as unique to this property that makes this property unique from the properties around it that is creating the hardship of him being able to not build the fence.

Agreed.

Another valid point.

Other comments, questions.

My my other concern was uh the reason for uh the fence tall fence uh um code in my mind is basically for safety, you don't want to run tall fences out to the streets for safety, kids on bikes and pedestrians getting hit by cars, but it appears that this would be completely within the code, except for the if the reason that uh his address is on the wrong side of his building.

It looks like there's plenty of clear uh clear sight lines for the alley and all streets.

So I'm I'm satisfied with that.

Yeah, I mean it looks like they accounted for that in the yeah, with the triangle vision.

Yeah, yep.

Any other discussion amongst the board?

No, no.

All right, go through the findings.

All right.

Uh so this is the appeal of Brett Steigerwall for a dimensional variance from section 22.58 to I3C of the zoning code.

If granted, the variants will allow construction of a solid fence at 240 Douglas Avenue in the street yard fronting the street that is the property's address when solid fences are allowed in side yards and rear yards only.

So finding one that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or classes of use is in the same zoning district, or a dunce to firm.

Christy D'Angelo Affirm.

Tim Redick affirm.

Kevin Rayleigh affirm.

All right, finding two that such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity.

Christy D'Angelo Afirm.

Tim Redick affirm.

Kevin Rayleigh affirm.

Tim Nick at your firm.

All right.

Finding three that a variance is not being requested solely on the basis of economic gain or loss, and the self-imposed hardships are not being considered as grounds for the granting of a variance.

Eric Dunst firm.

Christy D'Angelo firm.

Timber to confirm.

Kevin Rayleigh affirm.

Tim Nick at your firm.

And uh finding four that the authorizing of such variants will not be of substantial detriment to to adjacent property, and when that will not materially impair the purpose and intent of the zoning code or public interest.

Eric Downs to firm.

Christy D'Angelo Affirm.

Tim Rodic affirm.

Kevin Rayleigh affirm.

Tim Nick is affirmed.

Those were all uh unanimous in favor.

So based upon those findings I am going to make a motion that for approval of the dimensional variants for 240 Douglas Avenue in the street yard provided that the fence is built with the requisite visual vision triangle as um outlined in the appeal.

Eric Dunn second the motion all those in favor aye aye anyone opposed so granted.

Appreciate you guys thank you.

Have a good night you too hello do I have to have a motion for an adjournment.

So move anyone I'll second all those in favor aye all right boy what an exceptional date is on fire.

Right welcome aboard it's great.

Thank you for the uh clarification explanation prior yeah well even so I've got two recalled