Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Ready the meeting for the board of zoning appeals. For June 8th, 2026, it is for a 1 or a minute late. Sorry. I will do a roll call. I'll start on my right.

Eric duns, Christine D'Angelo, Timothy, Kevin, Riley.

Is there any public comment from anyone that is not related to 1 of the appeals that is before the board to this afternoon? Seeing none, thank you. Then the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the May 11, 2026 meeting. Need a motion to approve.

Kevin Riley 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. Any nos? 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, actually we're going to 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. That's what it is, a little refresher course on variances. As you probably know already, 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 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 attached to it quickly. 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 one of your neighbors does something, is 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. 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 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. 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 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 wishes or 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 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 The applicant has to show that strict compliance of the zoning code 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 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 part of their resource materials, published that variance decision form. 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. guiding principles to grant a variance. It's the back page of that memo that Charlie handed out earlier. Those are some things that you should study and apply those in your decision-making process. That's a very quick rundown on that. 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 variance. An unnecessary hardship, a unique property condition, it's gotta 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, I would encourage you to use that memo and the materials with it as a guide for making your decisions when you've got variance applications before you.

And we did the memo that Brian sent out was included as an agenda attachment, so it should be in your emails 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.

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, I will read the appeal. The city then will present their information, 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 should I'll 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. 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. Information that you want to present to us, we will then as a board have an opportunity to question the property owner. 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. If there's anyone else that is here to speak on behalf of the property owner, they would be called upon next. Then, 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 will be able to hear our conversation. We will then render a decision on the appeal itself. So you have an answer before you leave this afternoon. So, with that, I'm going to start with ID number 26 dash 0, 3, 5, 7, 9. Oh, sorry the appeal of. Erica and Clifford. We were that 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 variance will allow construction of a new garden shed at 2219 North view 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. Are you presenting? Yep.

All right, so this is 2219 North view road. This is on the outside of North view road about. Maybe about a half mile to the West of its intersection with Granby Boulevard. As you can see, this is an unusually large property. The, it has an area of. Just over or just under 1 acre. 42800 square feet. Uh, the properties along Patricia lane, just to the South, there are more typical 8000 square foot city lots. So this is a larger property that was developed originally most likely within the. What was at that time the town of and then it came into the city. It currently has a single-family home, a one-story ranch with an attached two-car garage. And it currently has an existing shed with an area of 120 square feet. So you can see from this picture, the rear yard is quite a large yard area. The applicants have stated that they can't fit a modern standard riding lawn mower in their existing shed and so they've had to replace the doors and the shed itself is kind of deteriorating and it's in need of replacement. So they would like to build a new shed with an area of 192 square feet. The code allows sheds with the maximum area of 150, so that would be about 42 square feet larger than the maximum allowed in the code. And they have stated that, again, it's necessary to have the larger equipment because of the larger yard, and it's necessary to have the larger shed to store that larger equipment that they can't fit it in a standard shed that's under 150 square feet. So one thing to note, these are the setback, or this is the distance from the property line for the house. It's about 20 feet from either either side yard, about 80 feet from the street yard property line, and about 260 feet from the rear property line. The setbacks for the district are 25 feet from the street yard, 10 feet from either side yard, and 40 feet from the rear. So in theory, they could add an additional storage area onto the house. They have stated that the existing garage is not large enough to store the equipment in either. However, there is a slope around the house, which would make that 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 where it meets the neighboring property. So it would be difficult to add a shed or some kind of a storage structure onto the house itself. So this is section 22.58, specific regulations, which states that for garages, garden, and utility sheds, they are permitted with the requirement that no more than one accessory building shall be erected on a lot where the principal dwelling has an attached garage. when where there isn't an attached garage obviously they're allowed to have a detached garage as well as a shed but 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 it shall not exceed 150 square feet in the 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. Yeah, 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 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?

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

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

Yeah, that's what they've stated.

Thanks.

All right, thank you. If there is anyone here to speak on behalf of the Weimers 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 quite a lengthy application, but I also have three letters of support from my immediate neighbors and my neighbor across the street, Gene Weidman, is here as well to speak on behalf of us building a new shed. So one of the things I do want to ask just real quickly is that this would fall under a dimensional variance request, right? Not the use request that the attorney spoke of? This would be an area variance, correct. Thank you. And then it's not so much that we have the 10 by 12 right now. My husband had to build out the doors on it just to be able to get the pretty old lawnmower and the deck size in and out right now. So in order to get a new lawnmower, we were looking for a larger shed with the larger door on it. Yes, the storage 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 12 by 12, I guess would work. But the door sizes that I looked at, I couldn't find something like that. I did submit something that we were looking at for the shed. which is the 12 by 16 that has enough leeway on both sides of the door that we could get this lawnmower and a new one in and out 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 garage. We can't build onto the house because 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 the way it is right now. Other questions? But I can help answer, aside from the information that's on the form. Otherwise I can leave these letters of support with someone.

Thank you, thank you.

I do want to also mention that, and it is in the form as well, but The shed as it is right now is actually closer to about 40 or 50 years old. One of my neighbors had submitted in a letter of support there that when he grew up in that home, when his parents owned the home, he actually knows that that shed was there when he was growing up, which actually dates it much longer than we've owned the home. 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 we want to be able to have 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, yeah.

I do, being the new person. Go for it. I'm familiar with the area. Directed basically at staff. Given the history of the area, old town of Pewaukee 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 along Northview Road there, along that part of Grandview Boulevard, there's all kinds of different sizes of different lots and homes and things like that. How does that play into this?

Well, currently, in the current code, there's just a universal standard for any property 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 you know we have our zoning code update that we're working on and that is likely going to be changed to allow somewhat larger. You know there you know we have recognized that there might be. Cases where where people need more storage, but. As of right now, the code doesn't really differentiate between the larger and the smaller lots. It's just everybody has 150 square feet.

So just for clarification, Charlie, when the new zoning code comes out, it's a possibility that a larger shed would be allowable? Yeah. Okay. And we're projecting that code is going to be finalized in the fall, is that correct?

The hope is that it'll be approved in July at this point, and then it would be going to effect in September. Okay, thank you.

That brings up a question how so you guys looking to have this construction done.

The summer the summer yeah. And there's a there's typically a lead time to order a shed and find somebody to install it so.

So this is a prefab as well then? Something that's already standing?

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

Yeah, and I apologize if you mentioned that you had submitted something extra. I didn't see it in the submission, so maybe it didn't get included in the attachment.

Sure. Do you need this?

If you have, yeah.

Yeah, of course.

But did you have like a larger...

I had the attachments that you had already shown, like the pictures and everything. Did you have that already?

Yeah, I think so. Okay.

All right, so you've had the shed for 22 years.

We've been in the house for that long. The shed existed before we did.

Yes. I guess my question is why. It's worked for 22 years, but why you need something bigger now? What hardship.

1, it's the doorway, so we have to, we had to expand it already. Thank you. So, the doorway. In order to get a new lawnmower, we'd need a new doorway, and eventually we're going to need to get a new lawnmower with a wider deck on it. So that's one part of it. The other part is that it's just dilapidated and falling apart, and so it's an eyesore to look at. So we're just trying to modify something, get a little bit more... i guess i don't technically need the storage it's more about the door size 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 storage unit but for right now it's really about the the size of the door the reinforced flooring in the shed right now that's Pretty pretty wobbly, and so with a prefab unit like Mr Redick was talking about, it's got the reinforced flooring in it as well. Some of the smaller units don't have that kind of flooring in it. It's not reinforced like this kind of a shot would be.

And you could build a shed. You understand up to 150 square feet without meeting any kind of a variance that would be allowed under the zoning codes.

Yeah, I do. Thank you.

Any other questions? Yeah, Charlie, could I see that map again of the properties?

Yeah, this one, yes.

We're looking at 2219, right? You have 2205 Highland. Yeah, sorry. No, that's OK. I just wanted to make sure I was looking at the right one.

The area is roughly the same.

Any other questions for the property owner? You said you had somebody else that wanted to speak on your way to my neighbor Jean. Thank you. You're welcome. If you could just come up, make sure you state your full name and your residential address, please.

My name is Gene Weidman. I live at 2222 Northview Rd across across the street, the north side of the street and. My driveway faces their house. And beautiful house, beautiful walls, and all of our properties are so big that riding lawn mowers are really the thing that we have to use. And partially, because as you saw in their picture 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. I'd rather they get something big that they can use for the next 20 years 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, it doesn't matter to us if they do it. It doesn't matter to the neighbors on either side, nor the one further down. because i've talked to all of them so um 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 going to ask anyways

what are the restrictions is it just one shed per property in the backyard then they couldn't 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 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 150 square foot shed and.

I can't get the word exceptional out of my mind because I know the area really well. That's why I asked the question about the, the. the town and everything, and then hearing that there might be a zoning change coming that might be more favorable. I'm stuck, but I knew, so I need your guidance as well, and I want to hear some of what goes on.

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 mores, if I'm understanding you correctly. I don't see a hardship that's substantial enough to go against the letter of the law on this one.

Yeah, I think there are some exceptional circumstances in the size of the lot. That's almost a full acre is quite unusual for any city property. But I agree with the other comments that I don't see an undue hardship here, especially with our new zoning codes coming. You may have the option of building that larger shed if you wait a month or two. 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. So this particular property doesn't have anything unique to it. But my bigger thing is I don't see building 150 square foot shed versus 192 square foot shed as really being a hardship that you need that extra 42 square feet.

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 see anything that says we can give a variance. And this size shed has worked for 22 years. Nothing's really changed.

Any other comments by anyone? You want to go through the findings? Do you want me to go through the findings? No, not anymore. Thank you. Yeah.

All right, you want to go through the findings of it? Yes. Okay. Uh, so this is the appeal of Erica and Clifford. Weimer for a dimensional variance from section 22.58. To a 2 of the zoning code, you've granted the variance will allow construction of a new garden shed at 2219 North view road. within an area of 192 square feet on a property with an attached garage when 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 does the sound christy d'angelo descent timothy reddick descent kevin reilly descent 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 eric dunst descent christy d'angelo descent

Timothy Riddick, dissent. Kevin Reilly, dissent.

Tim Nikic, dissent.

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.

Eric Dunst, affirm.

Christy D'Angelo, affirm.

Tim Riddick, affirm. Kevin Reilly, affirm.

Tim Nikic, 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.

Eric, don't affirm Christy, Angela firm, Tim, Riddick from Kevin Riley for.

All right, so finding one was one to four, and then finding two was zero to five, and the other two were all of those.

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

I'll second. Eric Dunn second.

All those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Anyone opposed? So the appeal has been denied. The variance is not granted. However, I'd keep an eye on the zoning code updates. To the next appeal, it is ID number 26-03711, the appeal of Jeff Trost for a dimensional variance from section 22.58 sub 1 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. So 3100 Angler Drive is at the intersection of Angler Drive and Creekside Drive. This is on the very far south side of the city in the Rivers Crossing subdivision. As you can see, there's a large undeveloped property to the west. So Angler Drive really only serves about eight houses to the west of the property currently. And then to the north is an undeveloped property which is in the village of Waukesha. So the red lines on this map are the city boundary. That property, I believe, was originally intended to connect and continue the housing. But with the village having incorporated, it is much less likely that that will be possible. So it's possible that Creekside Drive will never be extended. So as you can see, the property is set back good ways from both Creekside Drive and Engler Drive. And then it, again, Creekside then ends into Engler there. Here is the street level of the property. This is a similar one-story ranch-style house with an attached garage. And the applicant would like to put the shed in the side yard there. So there's the view down Angler Drive. So here's the location that he's hoping to propose. You can see the house in this survey with the potential location if a variance is not approved. And then this red box is where the applicant would like to put the shed in the street yard facing towards Creekside Drive. lining up pretty closely with the rear line of the house. And as the applicant has noted, there's a pretty steep slope which starts about 10 feet back from the house and extends into a culvert at the rear of the property and then ultimately into a creek behind it. So it starts about 15 feet back from the house. So it would be possible to fit the shed in the rear yard, but it would pretty significantly increase the cost related to grading and other necessary changes that would have to be made to fit it there. So here's the rear of the property. You can see the slope that drops off towards the towards the back. If the shed was going to be in the rear, it would have to be set back at least five feet from the house, and also there's a patio there that the applicant would not want to put the shed in. So here's the rear yard. I don't believe that bear patch is the location that the shed would go in otherwise. uh it would be further further towards the other side of the house but it would be partially in into this sloped area and then here is he's staked out some red flags showing where the location of the shed would be it might be a little bit difficult to see in that picture but you can see where the where the proposed location is the shed would be a standard 10 by 15 150 square foot shed with vinyl siding and one large entrance door as well as windows on the right and the rear elevations and then a smaller door on the left elevation. And then there's a wall section which you can note the potential increase for the footing with the slope depending on the location. He did provide an estimate for the cost of the work. The difference between the site work that will be required, if it's in the rear yard and the side yard, is about 13,000 square feet. So it would be $23,000 for site work if it has to go in the rear yard to add in the The footing for the slope and it would be about $10,000 if it's not. So this is. 22.58 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 industry yard or side yard unless otherwise specified.

Questions from the board or the city.

Do we know. Uh, the. Projection on that that street that at 1 time was going to be going through. At the creek side drive. Yeah. It sounds unlikely that that street will ever be.

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 detached from the village and then attached to the city the current administration in the village of waukesha has basically any uh any request to detach properties they've they've flatly denied 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 to 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 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.

Nope, the other one is good.

This one?

Yeah, thank you.

The original plan was to have probably Creek State Drive connect with Stillwater 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 Trost. You can just remember to state your name and your residential address when you get up to the microphone, please.

Sure, my name is Jeff Trost.

Trost, 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, we talked about the money cost for the foundation. That's not the biggest part of it. The biggest issue is. We're 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, so behind the house becomes very problematic from. Both anesthetic and as well as 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 goes down much harder. So it's fun to mow. It means you have to crab angle your lawnmower to mow up it. So it's a little challenging. So I can see that they took the pictures probably a couple of days ago from the backyard, because I was just digging in to put my tomatoes in. And the posts aren't up there for the fence. So in any case, 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. So I need a riding lawnmower, I need room for that. I've got a regular mower, but even snow blowers and shovels and garden rakes and all that 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 that looks good, also without impinging upon the amount of light that comes into the house. Is kind of a dark house so. Thank you.

Okay. Any questions for.

Jeff, do you get we've had some pretty severe rains. Last year does that area fill up with water in the back?

Yeah, I was here when I got in we had 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 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 to which is going to interfere with drainage.

Yeah, there's a 25 foot right of way for that drainage canal. So about the I mean, I've got a lot of room behind. It'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. Would probably be in that floodplain.

Into the inflection, probably. Well, I'm not sure if it goes in the floodplain, but it's a inflection is about 16 feet out. OK, I'm talking about about 16 feet, but then I have to again that. Yeah, the inflection is like 16 feet out and I can't go much further than that with a property because it would then start to get into the into that culvert ditch in the right of way, I guess. Thank you, Jeff. That was my question. Thank you, Kevin. I'm also very interested in that new legislation of bigger ones. I kept it to 10 by 15 for that.

Charlie, does the new zoning codes, does it have any changes in side yard structures or not really?

It does, but it still wouldn't allow them in a street yard. So I think 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 a mystery 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. It looks like if you rotated the shed 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. 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.

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?

Well, that would be my question, but 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 rear, the footprints, the side to side on Engler. 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 the 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 line of the back of the house.

Yeah, Charlie, could he, right now he wants it on 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 toward the backyard? Like to the west, I guess, or to the left on this?

Yeah, he's got enough room on the back side yard to move the shed farther. He just needs to get it behind the house, right?

Yeah, it needs to be behind the house. But it doesn't need to be. Yes. Cardinally behind the house. It could be on the side behind the house. It would need to be five feet from any lot line. So that side lot line on the west side, whatever the angle is on the actual street, on that inside, it could be shifted from where the yellow box is here. It could be shifted over to... Uh, 5 feet, so it looks like there's about 13 feet to the edge of the house. So it would be. It would be, I guess just the corner would be overhanging.

Okay, so where that yellow boxes, you could move it to the left.

Yeah, as long as it was also into some slow down again, it starts to slow down there because there's drainage line between my and Eric's house on that side of the of the property. Trying to see if you can see from, yeah, you can see the utility units there. Those are my neighbor's, Eric's yard. My yard ends before those boxes.

Did you say you purchased the home?

I'm sorry I bought it in February. OK, we're back and 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 why we end up here. I have a brother who's about 10 minutes away from me so.

OK. Any other questions?

Again, thank you for your time. Thank you, thank you.

All right. Now we are close that again, portion of this appeal talk as a board. Looking at 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 that it's a fundamental right to be able to build a shed on your property. You don't have the space, you don't have the space. I don't know that that's necessarily a hardship, I guess in my perspective.

I think the hardship is the way the land itself slopes and the fact that it collects water. I think that's the hardship that I see in place. So I don't know if I necessarily.

It does make it difficult, but it still can be done. True.

And it's not unique to this particular property. I mean, there's a whole row of properties.

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

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 will set a precedence then.

Yeah, I guess any other comments we should talk about it.

I'm not completely clear whether looking at the picture we've got right here. Yeah, he wants to put the shed these 4 corners on the. On the side of the house, no, we're the orange.

Yeah, and the, the problem is, is there's a. Unused.

possibly never use street that fronts that.

Yeah, this is from the Creekside Drive sidewalk.

That's not really our question, though. We don't get to decide based upon maybe this street will go through at some point and maybe it won't. 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 can't see back in that shut up Deeper down that culvert that needs that needs to have free flowing. I don't think you could build in there just because you'd be impeding the.

The drainage, but anyway, I think in this picture, the drainage actually goes to the right. And he says it fills up and then follows over into the. The marshy area back there.

Okay, I guess yeah, is it possible to push it back another 3 feet in the current position that is that is that you're requesting and 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 is my question.

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. And that was what 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 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 4 feet or so, which seems like we can do that without adding the footing. That that will be considered rear yard and not street yard.

Then I know that in that location, it would still be street. So that that location. Yeah, maybe you should have. Done a kind of a slide showing which what is the street yard. The street yard would extend. It's basically to the right. Yeah, it was. It's just straight back from the house along the whole. Creekside drive side there, so. 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 angular drive street yard.

And there's no ordinance for putting in urban providers or something to block it.

From street view, there would yeah, there's not an exception for if there's a, you know, if that would be something you could. You could make a condition, it might not be. And forcible, but you could request that as a. You know, if you were going to grant a variance, you could say. We feel that this will be a detrimental to the, the surrounding area. If it's just a shot there, but if you if there's landscaping to screen it, then 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. I'm sorry to understand that, but it's the it's the appearance from the street. If there's a shot in the ball.

Okay. That's why it's not a prefab shed. That's why it's a nice looking shot. So it's a good looking build building.

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

It's still going to be even if I put it behind the house, it would be visible from the street.

Right true, but it will be in ordinance. It will be inside of the letter of the law behind.

Yeah, it's just it's just. Because the slope, it becomes a problem of egress and ingress, egress 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 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 becomes more challenging because of that.

Any other thoughts that street that we're hung up on? We have, there's no clue whether it is or whether it isn't. It's in the city of workshop, correct? So. Is it's in the city of Waukesha 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 in the fact that it's the last property on a street that will never be that got paved and got started. But it's just a turnaround now, so I'm, I'm stuck.

I don't even set up as a turnaround. It's a dead end.

Well, currently what's happened is you're on a corner lot, even though functionally and for all realistic purposes, it's not a corner lot. And as someone who's owned corner lots many, many times in my life, all that extra shoveling and the setbacks basically... give you very, very tiny backyards because both sides of your house are considered street. And unfortunately, because you bought the property as a corner lot, I know functionally you should put the shed on the side exactly where you want it, but it's technically a corner lot with two streets. So I don't know if we're able to grant it. Although I feel for you.

Like I said, I bought the lot. I didn't see it personally. And not knowing Waukesha 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 could do stuff with that. But I didn't see it personally. I'm taking care of my disabled son, Jeffrey. My wife's in the hospital. And I'm swamped. And I'm trying to get back to Wisconsin too. to be able to be by family so I can get some help. 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 brother. So if there's an emergency, I have somebody to help come by. So that's why I bought the lot. There's no recognition. I don't know how I'd know from North Carolina that Walker Shed doesn't allow you to build on the side yard. Otherwise, it's just a big, huge grass space.

I agree. It would be the logical place to put a shed. Mm-hmm. but 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 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. Okay. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you.

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

Yeah, 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 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. And what we see in 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. I'm just looking that up.

See if I can find anything. You can put a shed on it. It just may not look good or it may be costly and difficult.

In the location that he wants it. Yeah. Any other discussion?

Yeah, and my thing is we can't predict when or if that street. Right. And there would be other homeowners that 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 we're ready to go through the findings.

Yes.

All right.

All right. So this is the appeal of Jeff trust for a dimensional variance from section 22.58. 1, B, the zoning code. If granted the variance will allow construction of a shed in the street yard. At 3,100 angular drive. When detached accessory structures shall be permitted in the rear yard only not in street yards or side yards. 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 Dunn's dissent.

Christy D'Angelo dissent.

Tim Reddick dissent. Kevin Riley affirm.

Nick, it's your firm.

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 zoning district and in the same vicinity.

Eric Don's to sound Christy D'Angelo.

It's that to read it to say Kevin Riley dissent. All right.

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 Dunst Affirm.

Christy D'Angelo Affirm.

Tim Reddick Affirm.

Kevin Reilly Affirm.

Tim Nekic Affirm.

And finding four, that the authorizing of such variance 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 Dunst Dissent.

Christy D'Angelo Dissent.

Tim Reddick Dissent.

Kevin Reilly Dissent.

Tim Nekic Dissent.

All right, so finding 1 was 2 to 3 against and then 2 and 5 were 0 to 5 against and 3 was 5, nothing before.

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.

Ever since 2nd, the emotion all those in favor.

Any opposed. Sorry about that. Thank you for coming in.

What's the next steps if I disagree with you?

You can appeal it to the circuit court. 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. Way back there, there was a hill you had to try and go into. I've got to have a shed. I don't have room for my cars.

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

Thank you.

ID number 26 dash 3, I'm sorry 03712. the appeal of Brett. For dimensional variance from section 22.58 sub 2 sub. I sub 3 sub C of the zoning code, if granted, the variance 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.

All right, so this is actually Douglas Drive. So that's written incorrectly there. I don't think that's a big enough change to, I think that's okay to leave it that way, but we should just note that, I guess.

Okay, thank you.

So this is, oh, it is Douglas Avenue, I'm sorry. Oh. So I was incorrect in the way I had written in the presentation. So it's 240 Douglas Avenue. This is at the corner of Douglas Avenue and Grand Avenue. And as you can see, this is in the central city where. The lots are tend to be narrower. And tend to be narrower facing the street that they're addressed on. So, most of the lots on Douglas drive are narrow, roughly 50, 40 to 50 foot lots and then the ones on grand Avenue. Are are similar facing towards grand Avenue. 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 similar to the ones that are facing grand so it does have a street yard that's that's a setback that's similar to the setbacks along grand avenue and then it has a smaller smaller setbacks along douglas avenue so it's about 16 feet from douglas avenue so it's non-conforming in that regard And then also it has a very small rear yard, which is nonconforming as well. It has a larger yard. Facing towards the, the alley along on the rear there. That is serves the function as the rear yard of the house and then, and this yard facing towards grand is smaller and has a little bit of a slow. And then this is the, the rear yard. It's about 6 feet from. uh the rear of the house to the rear property line so it's also non-conforming in that regard uh normally a rear yard setback is in the district is 40 feet so the the code For for fences for properties that have. Properties that have a that has have 2. Street yards, so either corner lots or. Lots that have have front edges. They have a frontage on a rear facing yard. The code does allow solid fences in the street yard, which the property is not addressed on. So the idea behind that is to allow it to have a functional rear yard in cases where there is a where there isn't a large rear yard existing behind the house to allow there to be a fence to an area that would serve that purpose. It's allowed with vision triangles for driveways and alleys, and then also a setback of at least one foot from the sidewalk. So this is from the code. There's a diagram to show how that'll work. So in the upper right there that's circled is the example that would apply in this case. Normally, the address for the house would be on the street that the smaller yard is facing towards or would be on a functional street yard. So the applicant has sort of argued in this case that that yard closer to the alley is the functional rear yard, even though the house is facing towards Douglas Avenue and has an address on it. So this is what would be allowed based on the current code. The applicant would be allowed a privacy fence that's the red fence in this In the street yard facing facing Grand Avenue and then also. In a large portion of that yard around the house, the applicant would like to build a fence that would extend into the street yard along Douglas Avenue. It would extend out from the the east side of the house. To not quite meeting up with the. The street, it would be set back a couple of feet from the street from the sidewalk there. And then would also have a vision triangle cut out at the corner. At the alley, and it would extend back and. Fence in that whole section of the yard that is. between the building and the alley. The applicant has stated that he would like to use this yard as an area for a dog to have a run outside the house. The proposed fence would be a standard solid wood fence with a height of six feet. As you can see here, the interior side of the fence would have to face in, but that would be a fence that would be allowed In regards for in most lots throughout the city. So, in this case, the regulation is. Again, from 22.58 accessory use regulations. This is again in specific regulations. Which allows fences in residential districts, solid fences and residential districts. specifically on residential lots having two street frontages 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 solid fences are permitted in the yard fronting a street that is not the property's address

Questions from the board? 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 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 just a little bit confused. What is the... The current thing you have up here right now is what they're proposing.

This is what would be allowed. So they would be allowed to put a fence in the street yard facing Grand Avenue because that's the one that the house is not addressed on. So that's where the red, that Grand Avenue is over here. It's on the left side of this area photo and then Douglas is on the bottom. They would be allowed to put a street yard there if they wanted to. The request is to put it in the street yard basically between the house and the alley facing Douglas Drive instead of the, it wouldn't be along Grand Avenue. So that street yard would be left without a fence and then the street yard facing Douglas Avenue would have the solid fence in it.

So basically the picture that's up now, if you rotate it 90 degrees counterclockwise, will match your other picture.

Yeah, exactly. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the city? All right. If there is someone here to speak on behalf of Brett Stagerwald, assuming that's you. Again, state your name, please, and your residential address. And then if you want to tell us.

My name is Brett Stagerwald. I live at 240 Douglas Avenue.

Great. Go ahead. Anything you want to share with us?

Yeah. So I wrote something out. Just bear with me. So I am respectfully requesting a variance to the side yard fencing specific to my address at 240 Douglas Avenue. I am requesting a dimensional variance to allow fence extension closer to the sidewalk along my side yard due to the unique layout and positioning of my yard. My property does not have a traditional usage backyard like neighboring properties. This creates a hardship that is specific to my property and limits my ability to reasonably enjoy and utilize my yard space. I'm currently a city of Milwaukee police officer. I've been one for 10 years, and I'm actively trying to become a K-9 officer. I do need a yard that's fenced in. 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 fence there. I need that for training and being able to maintain the security of my K-9.

Questions?

You're saying that a four-foot decorative fence?

If I'm getting a German Shepherd, that thing's going right over the top.

Can you go to the picture that shows the actual property? There, thank you.

So from my understanding, 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 will 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 side slash backyard to use as privacy.

and having the space for training the canine, is that a requirement to become a canine?

It's just something, it's always like upkeep. You gotta make sure they're on point. We do canine training at the academy in Milwaukee, but we also do it at home.

Do you have an aerial view of this neighborhood?

And other than I would... be a problem, 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. It's basically from, if you could zoom in again, one more time please. I have 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 down. Maybe you would not just question if my address was a Grand Ave address, then what I would be asking would be perfectly fine. That's right. Yeah. Okay.

And it's sort of, the lot is sort of, it's oriented.

I was very confused when I got the denial letter, 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.

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 acceptable under our code.

Yeah, the the code was kind of written with that in mind. We had a. Four or five years ago, we had a case where a neighbor was denied a variance in the street yards and then reported every single neighbor to try and make the point that a lot of people have fences in street yards. And core lots and the code was written with with the intention of allowing. Allowing corner lots to have. To have a functional rear yard, you know, functional private yard. With the idea that that there would be 1. Street yard where that 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 the front yard is. Towards Grand, what would seem to be the functional front yard is towards Grand Avenue. But the entrance to the house is oriented towards Douglas, so it's address that way.

There are any other properties in this immediate vicinity that have the same kind of like. Strange orientation.

It doesn't look like it looks like they're all there might. Possibly 1 block to the north, but it's hard to see what the orientation is there.

And as he thinks of 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 was literally just put in like a week ago.

Any other questions for? City or the property owner? Oh, all right. I appreciate you guys. 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 pretty clear that. The only reason this gentleman isn't able to have offenses because his addresses on one side of his house than other. And I feel that's pretty unusual circumstance and. that it's pretty much impinging on his ability to enjoy his property as other homeowners in the city, just because he was addressed on one street rather than another.

I would have to agree with that.

That's why 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 build the fence.

Agreed.

Another valid point.

Other comments, questions?

My other concern was the reason for the fence tall fence. 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. Yep, pedestrians getting hit by cars, but it appears that this. This would be completely within the code, except for the if. The reason that his address is on the wrong side of his building. It looks like there's plenty clear sight lines for the alley and all streets. So I'm I'm satisfied with that.

I mean, it looks like they accounted for that in the yeah, with the triangle vision, yeah. Any other discussion? Once the board. No, no, all right go through the findings.

All right, so this is the appeal of Brett for a dimensional variance from section 22.582. I 3 C of the zoning code. If granted, the variance 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. 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 Dunst Affirm.

Christy D'Angelo Affirm.

Tim Reddick Affirm. Kevin Reilly Affirm.

Tim Nekic 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.

Eric Dunst Affirm.

Christy D'Angelo Affirm.

Tim Reddick Affirm. Kevin Reilly Affirm. 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, affirm.

Christy D'Angelo, affirm.

Tim Reddick, affirm. Kevin Reilly, affirm.

Tim Nikic, affirm.

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

Eric, that's the firm.

Christy D'Angelo firm.

Timer to confirm Kevin Riley for. Those were all unanimous in favor.

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

Eric Dunn seconds the motion.

All those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? so granted appreciate you guys thank you good night you too hold up hold up do i have to have a motion for an adjournment so move anyone else second all those in favor all right all right boy what an exceptional

What a baptism of fire. Right? Yeah.

It's great. Thank you for the...