 Uh, right there for nine. That's all yours. Sorry. This is. What? Oh. Oh. What? What? When this is on or off? Is it red or what does that mean? Red is. It's already recording. So. So. Just hang in a second. Oh. It's three o'clock. Go ahead. We're all about to go. We're going to call a meeting to order at three o'clock. First thing I order today is we're going to do the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Put your stand here right there. Well, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic of which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, and liberty and justice for all. Any of you people up here have a conflict of interest or anything that's going on here? Keeley? Anybody have a conflict of interest? First thing we want to do is approve the minutes from the last meeting. Hello. Is there any additions or corrections? Very none will accept the motion. I'll move to accept. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes are approved. I'm going to let Steve take care of number three. Number three, one. Sounds good. One of the things that the committees do with the once the elections are taking place with the different committees, we typically have an election of a chairperson and vice chair. So that's why that item's on there. And so item 3.1 would be the election of a chairperson for the Board of Appeals. Make a motion for Kevin Samson to be the new chairperson. So there's a motion and a second for that. Is there any other nominees? And so with a vote for that, the election is for a chairperson to be Kevin Samson. And I guess we'd take a vote for that. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. So as and then the next item 3.2 is the election of a vice chair to the Board of Appeals. And she's not here. There's no one on the phone, correct? Okay. And then the item 3.2 is the election of the vice chair to the Board of Appeals. So if anyone would want to make a motion to that, no one wants to be vice chair. Well, we could always vote down to be vice chair. Thank you vice chair. Any seconds? Well, so there is. Okay. So there was a motion for Don Gerber to be vice chair. And was there a second to that? I'll second Keely's motion to be vice chair. So you can't second your first. Okay. Is there a second to Don's motion for Keely to be vice chair? Is that what you Richard? All right. All those in favor? All those opposed? All right. So with that done, we appreciate all the time that you've given us the last couple of years. But Kevin, at this point in time, we'd ask that you take over the chairperson role. And if you guys wanted to switch seats. Yep. And I can help you out with this. So we're at 3.3. All right. Well, good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the zoning board of appeals meeting. Next item up is 3.3 variance application by Michael Wade requesting to concrete his gravel driveway currently has 11 feet from house to side lot line at 724 grand avenue. Mr. Wade, are you here? Okay. If you'd like to go ahead and step up the podium. Is there anybody here for this particular item? Any neighbors? Okay. So we have a couple of folks. Okay. So Mr. Wade, go ahead and let us know what you're looking at doing. I have a gravel driveway as you can see in the pictures. And I would like to pave that. We're in the process of building a new garage. I can't meet city ordinance because I only have above 11 feet from foundation to property line. So I'm asking for a variance for three inches from my property line and the nine foot driveway. Oh, yeah. We're going to go from front all the way to about where the garage sits now. Slightly forward. Yeah. And is it going to be concrete or black top concrete? I'm sorry. Don, did you have, did you have another question? Okay. I think there is a another gentleman. I think we have a couple of folks here that, that may have some questions here. So sir, if you want to, if you want to go ahead and step up the podium, let us know your name. Good afternoon. My name is Mark Shinnebec. And I am the property owner of the lot empty lot adjacent to 724 grand avenue. I'm not sure how much time I have to speak. As long as you need. Yeah. Okay. There's already been a motion to prove it. However, I would hope that you'd wait until you consider what I have to say. Okay. Okay. I would first like to point out that I have been talking on two occasions to Jeff Litzke, the code administrator for the North side of Shmoy. Okay. I would like to point out that there are two code compliant locations on the lot at 724 grand avenue to access the proposed new garage. Okay. One of those locations is east of the house on grand avenue. And it's where they have approximately 27 feet of road frontage to put in the new driveway that will go to the garage in the backyard. The second code appliance approach to the yard would be through the A street alley. Now, when I talked to Mr. Litzke on Monday about this, he was unaware that the alley was a public alley. He told me the alley was abandoned. I informed him that indeed it is a public alley. And if you look at the survey that Mr. Wade presented, you can see it says right on the survey, the certified survey that it says 16 foot wide public alley. So that indeed is a code compliant entrance way to Mr. Wade's property. So Mr. Wade's property has two code compliant entrances where you can meet the city codes to build the new driveway. Okay. And to make it an official part of today's public record, I'd like to present to the committee chair. I have a same survey that Mr. Wade has enlarged it a little bit and I placed both driveway locations, which I've just suggested along with Mr. Wade's future garage. I'd like to present them to the chairperson. Can you be able to put the survey on the screen please? I'd appreciate that. So we have this. Okay. How do you know if it's on? Yes, it's on. It's red. Yep. So a couple of things I had just mentioned there is there is the opportunity, obviously the code compliant, I guess driveway that he speaks of with regards to the alley is an unimproved alley. It's there technically on paper, but at this point in time it is unimproved, meaning that it's all grass. So just so everyone's aware of that. I beg your pardon? The alley that is there technically on paper is not physically built in terms of an alley. It's a grass alley. So it's there technically on paper, but it is not an improved alley. That's correct. It's an unimproved alley. That's correct. Which we have spoken about when we talked about you wanting to build the house there. Okay. Now I've been, I've owned this lot, my empty lot for some time and I've been developing ideas to put a future home on that lot. And at one point I was considering using the alley entrance to access my garage. And I asked the city zoning official at the time and he said that it would be allowed that I could use that alley to access my garage. This is however. What I mentioned was that you would be able to speak to the city engineer and the public works department to see what standard you would have to put that alley into in order to utilize that for as an alley to access your property. Are you Mr. Letzky? I'm Mr. Steve Sokolowski. Oh, okay. Yes. And I was told after I inquired further that I indeed can use the public alley to enter my garage but I'd have to improve the public alley with the city requirements, eight inches of gravel and another eight inches of concrete on top of that. And so that, you know, if I as a property owner developing my lot has the right to use that alley, Mr. Wade certainly would have the right to use that alley as well. That's the point I'm trying to make here. The alley is an unimproved public alley but there's nothing preventing it from being improved. That's the point I'm trying to present. Yep. Yep. We understand that. Okay. Now, the second public access to Mr. Wade's property is on Grand Avenue. That's a good picture of it. That's the A Street entrance for the alley. This is an entrance off of Grand Avenue where the big tree is there. That's Grand Avenue right behind that big tree. Okay. So you got 27 feet right where the little arrow is there circling around. That's 27 feet. And so by code, you know, that is a code compliant entrance to that alley. I mean, not the alley, I mean, to his side yard. And so that would be the second location on that for that lot where they would have a code compliant access to the alley. And what it would be is there's not an access from that road for him to enter there. He would have to change the curb and gutter on that property to do that. That's extended cost plus removing of the tree. And then you're encroaching very closely to the property right next door as well. So there's, you know, there is already an existing driveway entrance where he's asking to put where there is really already a driveway there and to improve the property to the neighborhood as well. So I guess I have a question about why, why, I guess what your grievance is as to why you wouldn't want us to do it or accept it. Okay. Well, Wisconsin statutes say that you have the city, the property owners, they have to abide by the laws in the state of Wisconsin. And if you review your own variance request form that you have to, that Mr. Wade had to fill out to apply for this variance, there's three steps that Mr. Wade has to take before his request for a variance can be approved. Okay. Step, step, the first step. Please let me refer to my, to the form. No worries. You know, he's supposed to be able to be, Mr. Wade has to pass three tests according to your variance request before something can be granted. Correct. And if Mr. Wade can't meet the three tests, according to Wisconsin statutes, the variance has, it's not warranted. Okay. Okay. You're familiar with this? Yes, I'm very. I'm sure you are. Okay. So I want to point that out to the panel that, you know, approving this variance without it meeting test one, two and three is against Wisconsin statutes. And it's against the city court zoning ordinance. Okay. Okay. Three tests are part of the application. And if you want the, basically the three are why, what hardship is created by the application of the zoning ordinance to the property is reasonable use of the property denied by the zoning regulations. Is there a unique physical characteristic of the property which prevents development of the property and would granting the variance harm the public interest in any way. So Mr. Wade is supposed to explain to the board how his situation meets test one, test two and test three. And he did in his application. Well, as I read his application and I have it, I have it up from the office on Monday. I do not see in there where he explained satisfactorily how he fails, how he cannot, why he cannot build the new driveway on the west, on the east side of his lot. Okay. We'll have him. He can answer or his contractor. Well, his, his contractor or he can answer that question. Okay. You can come up to the podium. Mark, if you could let them come to the public lectern, Dave, you need to come up and speak into the lectern so everyone can hear you. Yeah, I guess. Yeah, we can, yeah, we can go back and forth if we have to. Yeah. Again, I'm, again, I'm Dave Nenning, American garage builders. Most of you know me to contest this gentleman over here on the other, it says the other side of the property has a hall structure and a tree in the way. See picture. So that's the other that he's contesting why I can't go on that other side. And as this, I'm sorry, I don't know your name, ma'am. Keely Johnson. This Keely Johnson has notated by the pictures that, and there's the tree and the others, the east side of his house, which would cost more in construction costs versus just trying to do the variance to go by the existing driveway already. Mr. Wade's in compliant with everything here. And Mr. Wade has told me this gentleman calls him, argues on the phone with him, comes on his property unattended. I've gotten pictures that you've been there doing things on his property. So, you know, he's had this empty lot for X amount of years. Does he plan on ever doing anything there? You saw the pictures of the un-maintained alleyway there that's strictly grass. You know, then you, if I put in a driveway on the east side of the building where the tree is, that's a cost, laying that concrete is an extra cost. And then having to fill in the existing driveway with dirt, grass, whatever, landscaping, that's just more costs. So, I ask that you accept this variance and we just move along with life. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have any other? Sure. Okay. Sir, was that your response to how you approved test one? Yeah. Please address the committee and not each other. If you have questions. Okay. Please address the committee. So, I'm asking if that's Mr. Wade's representatives. Is that his response to prove that, is there proof for test one? Right. And he said yes. Okay. He mentioned that he's talking about cost, that it might cost more to build the driveway. They have to take a tree down, have to move a garden. According to Wisconsin statutes, any extra costs incurred to bring your lot up to code compliance. It's inconsequential. Those costs extra time are not supposed to be a consideration by the board when they review the facts. Okay. Irregardless that there was an existing driveway there, there's a 80 plus year old driveway at the site right now. Well, that I'd like to point out that driveway is a non-compliant driveway. Well, it could have been a compliant in 1890, but yes, as of today's code. Okay. So it's an obsolete driveway with an obsolete garage that Mr. Wade would like to tear down. I'd like to point out that this obsolete garage is actually about two and a half feet into the alley. So it's not code compliant. So we're eliminating one of the non-compliant issues. Yes. So that's a good thing. I'm trying to point out that the property is so old that any of the things that are obsolete and no longer apply to the current codes, such as the garage and the driveway. So Mr. Wade wants to redo the garage. So by code, he has to put in a new concrete driveway. And by code, he doesn't have enough room for that driveway. He's only got about 11 feet, eight inches, I believe it's short on the picture. Right. And we're familiar with that. And that's why he's here today. Yeah. And you need, by minimum by code, you need a 10 foot wide driveway and a three foot setback from the neighboring property. Right. Okay. So that location does not meet current codes and according to your variance, the guidelines for your variance, which are spelled out in the section 15, that area of the current driveway does not qualify for a new driveway. And if any other options exist, according to the city codes, if any other options exist, those options are, take precedence over a non-compliant option, which is what Mr. Wade's contractor is suggesting. He's suggesting a non-compliant option. So since there's two different locations on the property for the new driveway that would be code compliant, I am suggesting that Mr. Wade's contractor follows the city codes and bring the property up to be code compliant. Okay. That is the point I'd like to make. If I may ask, what is the objection to taking his existing, what he's using as the existing driveway, what is the objection to having that actually improved? My main objection is that it's not following the city codes, the new driveway. If you would approve that non-compliant driveway for permission to put this concrete down, you'd be approving, you'd be going against the state codes. And as long as there are, I can see that there would be a solution if Mr. Wade didn't have any other access to his yard for a driveway. But he does. In Wisconsin law states, that if the property... He doesn't because you're dealing with him to put in a driveway on the other side, he does not have access or curb and gutter open for him to be able to access his driveway. So that would then be a cost that would be incurred by the city to be able to acquire him to have access to his property off of that road. There's already existing access on the existing so-called driveway that he is using right now. So the other side, if he chose to put the property or the driveway on the opposite side of his house, he has no access to that driveway without curb and gutter. I understand that. And that's a cost that the city, which then you as the taxpayer would acquire at that time. So that is something we also have to take into account as well. That if there is something that needs to be modified or changed, in that way, so much so, that it's actually a cost for our taxpayers, we have to be cautious of that as well. So, and then having an access of an alley that is full of grass and is not cut and not trimmed is also a hard thing to really say that he has access, because he wouldn't. It's not like he would be able to get to his property once he put that driveway in. He wouldn't. Okay. I appreciate that viewpoint. But I'm wondering at this point, after your comments, if the city is, cares about enforcing the zoning ordinance. What we do to a certain point? Sure. To a certain point. We do to a certain point. I know there is no official curb there. That's from years ago. It's just sort of like a little lump. But it gives him access to his property. Yeah. I mean, you could take a car there right now and just drive right onto the lawn. It would be no problem. It's almost like an apron. The whole frontage of his lot is like an apron on the Grand Ambulance. The whole Grand Ambulance block there is like that. But I live around the corner from you. So I know exactly where the property is, and I know exactly what the roads look like there. Yes, I do. Okay. But, you know, it's something that we have to look at the same type of thing too, where if he wants to drive and park his car on the front of his lawn, he's not allowed to do that. That's right, because the court says he has to drive and build it on a driveway. Exactly. And so, but what I'm getting at is he has plenty of room on that road frontage there to build a code compliant driveway. Okay. I mean, I guess my question. On my particular lot, I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, continue. Okay. On my particular lot on H Street, I have a large street in the front yard, and that's going to be in the way when I build my home. Sure. I called up the Department of Public Works and asked, can I have permission to cut the tree down? And they says yes, you can cut the tree down if you're going to put your driveway in. But you have to pay for it. Right? I have to pay for it. Sure. So your comment is saying that Mr. Wade has to pay to cut that tree down. I mean, that's not at the city's on a city's dollar. No, I understand. The tree is in the public right away. But it's a property owner like myself. I have to pay to cut my tree down. Correct. Put my driveway in. So Mr. Wade would have to pay to put. Sure. Cut the tree down if it is driveway in. Sure. And I'm not saying that he doesn't have to do that. That's not what I'm saying. There, there, I guess my question would be more to Mr. Wade, what your, what your intention is or what it, what the new garage will look like, what the new plan for the driveway is. Just to get more of a picture. Sometimes if you show us a picture, that's a little bit more helpful to get everyone to understand exactly what you're looking to do. So if we have some of those pictures would be a little bit more helpful. Yeah, I guess, I guess from that perspective, what are you, what are you talking about doing? I mean, there's a footprint on here, but what are we talking about in terms of the garage? I guess it's the question. If you would mind Mr. Wade coming up to the lectern to speaker is contractor. The garage yet, not the garage is waiting for your decision today to see where we can actually put it. So I don't have any pictures of that. Okay. It's going to be a four car garage. I believe around 960 square feet or 980. It's compliant with the What's the current size of the garage? I do. Isn't it a three and a half, I think? Yeah. There's a picture of it. You can go up there. It's real close to the same thing. It's just the newer garages I think aren't going to be as wide. Sure. You know, they're going to be shaped a little bit differently. So the garage is going to be probably close to 10 feet forward from the picture and probably three to five feet off to the right. And it's just going to be two big doors and then the door off to the other side there. That's what I'm wondering. That's what I'm wondering. That's what I'm wondering. That's what I'm wondering. That's what I'm wondering. So I guess is there a possibility to move your garage over just a little bit to move that driveway over just a scoot so it will fall in compliance? Right. One of the things that could be considered as we're looking at this is say, for example, he gets it to the house. And if they're veering it over at the house, there could be a certain area to veer it on over to get the three feet between the neighbor's yard who's speaking and the garage to turn it on over. So that definitely is an option that the board can consider. I didn't understand all of that. I didn't want to stop you. Yeah. Dave, you're going to have to speak in the microphone. I just want to... You have to speak into the microphone, Dave. When you're talking, we'll look. Yep. We can put that survey up on the TV if you want to explain that. We just have to have people speaking in the mic. Yeah. I got you, Steve. So as you see, it's five feet already from the survey done from DNH Land Surveyors, which is certified by the red stamp here. I'm five feet off of the marker from what Dennis found on the north side of where the unimproved public alley was. We are going to be five and a half feet from the northwest corner, five feet where you go up to the southwest corner on the garage portion of it. And the question about veering lies where the corner of the back of the house is where you see the 11.7. Yep. That's the tight space where we're really only impeding on anything right there. Otherwise, I'm code compliant all the way around and I've built plenty of places in this city where I'm code compliant and I don't have issues with the city because I follow their rules. When my customers want to have a hardship, I suggest them to come here so they can comply with the city. So again, I ask you. So the question that's being asked is you're mentioning that you're five feet, but there's no reason why the garage couldn't be pushed over if that was an issue a little bit to the east in order to get past that corner and have three feet along the common property line. The only area where necessarily would need to be closer is the section between up to the house and then a certain portion past the house. There's no reason why it could fear and keep the three feet over there. So I don't know what the neighbor feels about that, but that's certainly an option that the board can take into consideration. I would gladly be as far away from this gentleman as possible because my customer doesn't deserve this, really. And he's clearly got an empty lot that he's had for how long. So I don't know what you want to do right by the house there. That seems to be the only problem in question as being code compliant. So I'll do whatever you guys want to suggest to me. I know that's why I'm here for another answer. So again, I ask that you approve this. We just try to make everyone happy if we can. Yes, yes. And you've seen me before and we all want to try to make everybody happy. I don't know. And I certainly appreciate that. Thanks, Dave. I don't know if you'd have any comments one way or the other with regards to that, sir, if what your thought process would be because obviously he's looking at the zero areas or the three inches in the area between the houses and then once they got it passed, they could veer it over, which is more adjacent to your property, which would be code compliant, which you keep stressing. So I don't know if that makes things any more acceptable to you or not. Okay. I appreciate the fact of you exploring the possibility of a secondary solution. We just had the survey up on the TV. I'm wondering, I submitted my two proposals for a code compliant driveway. Is it possible to have them up on the screen? No, it is not. We don't have, that was all documentation that was brought to us ahead of time and that's the only way we can get it in. Okay. So the two code compliant items that, I'm sorry, what was your last name again? Shinnebec. Shinnebec. Mr. Shinnebec is speaking about, is the alley which we've talked a number of times that's coming this way and then the other which is coming this way off of grand. So those are the two that he's showing. Right. That are different. So basically if you look at that, if you're looking at the survey right now, this is the one that Mr. Shinnebec is talking about on the unimproved alley, which doesn't make sense. And then the one off of grand, which would have more of a legitimate opportunity at this point in time from the standpoint of you're coming from an improved street. So those are the two options he's speaking of, which he has spoken of for his other previous comments. Okay. What does the city suggest? You know, I mean, there's in, you know, from our perspective, we're looking at an existing driveway that's gravel that he can use right now. So from our perspective, even if we denied it as board, he would still have the opportunity to use the gravel as is. I'm thinking offhand and the board can do what they wish, but at a minimum, we could have that area a little past the house in terms of going close to the property line. And then if anything, veering it on over to the east so that there is that three foot paving setback that Mr. Shinnebec is talking to that is the code compliant in that zone. So does Mr. Shinnebec own lot 10 and 11 or just lot 10? I don't know. I don't know. Are you, do you know if it's just half and half of 11? Okay. Okay. So half of 11. So if, I mean, we would have to probably give about, I would imagine 10 feet past the house in order to start getting a radius of some, a legitimate radius. I have a survey map. I blown up Mr. Wade's survey. I read, I maybe spoke too soon. Are you? No, no, no. Feel free. I submit those two other survey maps that I enlarge from Mr. Wade's survey. Yes. Where I have the two proposals. I also have, I use the same enlargement. It will show the impact area of which I'm referring to. I mean, it's kind of hard to see on that photograph. Sure. Yeah, yeah, sure. I wish we could put these up for everyone to see. Yeah. Unfortunately, it's, you know, you're going to have to, you're going to have to, you're going to have to speak into the lack there. No, no, no. The proposals can't be put on the screen. But I have a diagram of Mr. Wade's original survey that shows the impact. You have to speak into the public. They're recorded. Yeah. The microphone. Yeah. Because we're being recorded. Sorry about that. Okay. I have a blown up survey, an enlargement of the survey that Mr. Wade has up on the screen there. And it shows the area on the lot that impacts my lot. If you're going to concrete that driveway. Now Mr. Wade wants to put his concrete three inches from my lot line. That's correct. Okay. And that's why he's here today. Yes. And state code requires three feet. City code is three feet. Or city code. Okay. So we're talking about three inches. So I would like to present this to the board so the board can see this. I know unfortunately the public won't be able to see it. But you know the board is the one that's making the decision. And it'll show you. I've also included on this diagram. The plot plan. For my. Future development. And I live in the whole city right now. I retired. I've been holding on to the city lot. For the last 12 years because I want to build my retirement home. On that lot. I am currently drawing up plans. If you want to bring that up. And this is a street. I don't know if you want to ask if any of the board members have any questions. Yeah. I think if anybody else has any questions. Thank you very much. We'll hang on to this for the time being as we kind of go over this. Pass that around. Does anybody else have any questions up on the on the board here? Dad. Can you hit your button? I don't know. I'd have to. Ten and a half. Don. Don. Don. Don. Don. Don. Don. Don. Don. Done. Done. Done. All done. On the shoulder. Done. Call. Thank you. For standard. And that property that you're talking about there has been like that. Ever since then. And so. It's done. Got the. Good. It's been like that ever since then. And Keeley, how long have you been in the business? That was 20 years. Almost 20 years, OK. This is what he owns right here. But this is an abandoned alley here. That's what we're really talking about. You're talking about an abandoned alley. No, sir. The abandoned alley adjoins my property. The abandoned alley is to the north of my property. My property is to the north of my property. I'm a little confused. What do you use? 11. Survey map is on the map. Sir, you have to speak into the microphone. If you look at the survey map that's on right up, if you refer to that, you can see Lot 10. And I own the first, the north half of Lot 11. The gentleman there that's saying he was in real estate business, he should have enough experience to read a map. If you look to the north of Lot 10, that's the unapproved public alley. I'm not sure what point he's trying to make that he's that I've owned a lot for 12 years. OK, thank you. Your objection has certainly been noted. And we do appreciate your input. But I think we should probably be better at moving forward here because we have a whole room full of other folks. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today. But I do have one last thing to talk about. If you review the application for a variance, this panel is supposed to be asking Mr. Wade how he passes test number one. And that's what the application has done. Right, correct. You're supposed to ask him how he can prove test number two. You haven't asked him that. You haven't given me an opportunity to say how it would harm my interest in that property. And you haven't given Mr. Wade an opportunity to say how his project won't harm the public interest. So then you're trying to take this process and shorten it. And that's not fair. Thank you, sir. I deserve time to speak and time to express my interest, especially when it comes to no harm to the public interest. Thank you very much. I think we're going to go ahead and take a vote. I mean, unless there's something else that we have to adjust. Well, if Mr. Wade would like to speak again, he can respond to what he's saying. Excuse him. He would like to answer his questions. OK. Of course, I already heard that the alley really is not an option. I just want to point out that there's a tree block in the other entrance. So the only way to go through the alley is way on the other side of the block. Then I want to add that if you look at the survey, I must have misunderstood you in the beginning. I don't expect to go all the way back three inches from my property line. That was never the idea. It was only from about where my foundation of my house ends. I mean, that's all I want. And it wasn't going to go and be compliant with the city and everything else. Sure. Just wanted to make sure. Yeah. And then I just want to say thanks for your time. Thank you. So right now, we do have a motion to approve on the floor. And we do need a second. And that is noted. Sir, if you would like to speak, you have one more opportunity to get done what you want. And then the question has been posed. And then we're going to close it to public testimony, and the board is going to act. So you have the opportunity. One of the things that the board is supposed to consider before approving of variance is test number three, Armed to the Public. Now, as I previously expressed, I'm trying to develop this lot for my retirement home. Now, when I was a kid, I used to play with dominoes. You set them up on a table. And then you draw on a line. You press one, and all the dominoes start tumbling. Any decision that's made in the city on these small lots, one decision has a domino effect where it pushes back on everything else. Also, in an urban setting, you got like trees that grow over the lot line. And then they start interfering with the neighbor's property. They start hitting the road for the regatta or a wire. So the neighbor has the opportunity to cut that tree branch off the lot line to regain his airspace for his own protection. OK, now I give you those couple of analogies here, because I don't know how to help make my point. OK, granting the nonconforming driveway would deny me the full use of my lot. I could face a legal challenge in the future if I decided to put up a fence on the lot line. A driveway on the lot line without the protection of the three-foot setback would force the airspace over my lot to be used for the vehicle's mirrors. Now, the prior owner of 724 Grand Avenue had a large pickup truck with these big mirrors to pull his recreational vehicle. He also had a large box truck that he used to haul construction materials around to fix his house. Now, by forcing that concrete right up to my property line, you're forcing the traffic through that driveway to use the airspace over my property or those mirrors. Now, you might say, well, what difference does that make? Well, I'm interested in putting in developing a lot. I'm interested in putting a fence on the lot line. I could face a legal challenge because I put a fence on the lot line and the neighbor's cement is right on the lot line. My fence would be in the way of his mirrors. So then I would be forced to set my fence line back into my property so he could pass through with the mirrors. This, I plan on building a 10 by 20 yard shed in the backyard, which is five feet from the corners. And that's an impact area. If you look at the survey map that I handed in there, it's in the impact area of his driveways in the impact area. So I build that shed there. If I have to move my fence back from the lot line, then my fence is going to be too close to my yard shed. And I'm going to lose the use and enjoyment of that part of my lot. I'm going to lose that. And you're going to say, well, so what? Just move your shed back closer to A Street. Well, I can't move my shed back closer to A Street because there's a city code that says it has to be 10 feet away from my house. So you see how the dominoes are starting to fall. And then you're going to say, well, why don't you move your house closer to A Street? Well, then I'm going to lose the use and value. I need a certain amount of room to put my driveway. So what I'm trying to make is, if you allow this new concrete driveway to be three inches from the lot line, it's going to have a domino effect going across my entire lot. And that's an unfair burden for me to have to bear. In short, every inch of my lot is vital to my success in my attempt to develop it as a single family retirement home. This variance restricts my choices of what I can do for my lot's development. It would create an unfair burden to bear, especially when there are two code compliant choices available for 724 grand at them. Now, it was earlier mentioned that the alley, it's in grass or whatever it is. It doesn't matter what state it's in. It's always cut. But I mean, it's a fact of the matter is it's a public alley, and the public can use it, and the public can have it developed at their expense to make it into a driveway to access the garage. It would be code compliant. Anything else? Okay, yes. Because we need to start finishing up. You're rehashing a lot of points you've made. So if you could be brief, we'd appreciate it. Okay. I'm opposed to any remedy that allows less than a three foot setback by code from the edge of the concrete to my lot line. My lot is only 60 feet wide. Even one car length impacts nearly one third of my rear lot line, as I was referring to with the shed and the fence. An undersized driveway, Mr. Wade's undersized driveway would be sandwiched between Mr. Wade's home and the potential fence on the lot line. And this would inevitably cause problems. Snow removal could damage the fence. Vehicles, mirrors could be impacted by the home or the fence. You know, the mirrors are gonna be running into the home, they're running to the fence. In my eye, the code compliant driveway would eliminate all those potential problems that a new non-conforming driveway would create. The fact that 724 Grand Avenue currently has an 80 year old driveway is not a suitable burden approved for granting such a variance request. Such a request would be solely for the owner's convenience and a spelled out in the variance procedure application. Such a request would be solely for the owner's convenience and therefore it does not meet the guidelines for variance approval. So by approving that, you'd be going against your own guidelines. The fact that Mr. Wade would probably need to relocate his garden and remove a tree as of no consequence according to the law, according to the codes. Any additional expense or time spent by Mr. Wade to achieve a code compliant situation solution are required by the very variance procedures. Right here, the variance appeal procedures, they're required by this very form. Right, you've mentioned that. Okay, okay. And finally, my main opposition to this variance is that Wisconsin state law dictates that if a code compliant solution can be found, it must be given precedence over any non-conforming request. Mr. Wade's request is non-conforming. My proposals fit the codes for his new driveway and garage. All he has to do is move his garage over to the east side of the lot. Sir, is there anything new you'd like to add? Because everything that you're speaking about, we've heard a couple of times. Okay, I have one last paragraph. If it's new, fine, but if it's rehashing, then we're gonna start taking questions from the board and taking action. Okay, sir, I respect your opinion. Thank you. Thank you for the time. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Say one thing real quick. Yes. Hang on. Nope, Don. Nope, Don. Hang on a second. I just want to address the board one more time. As this gentleman over here thinks that we're going to be right on the line in question of the back of the house there with the 11-7. Mr. Wade is suggesting nine-five. So here's his rebuttal. We don't want to be on your property again, but it is a huge cost to move that. You don't know how much of a cost that is. Mr. Wade is already spending a lot of money to improve his property over there. You don't build nothing on the property. Dave, you want to speak to the board. Okay, all right. Thank you very much right now. So we do have a motion to approve on the table. Do we have a second? Second from Dick? Yeah. Any discussion? Could I make one comment? Yes. I have one comment. Don, could you press your button, please? Three of us are familiar with this eminent domain. This has been longer than 25 years that he's probably been mowing grass on your property. I'm not sure that you have a legal claim about what you bought. All right. It's not for us to get into the legal aspect. So let's stay with the item. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I think one of the things that the board may want to consider that presently isn't part of the motion is whether or not we wanted to say, for example, have a three foot setback say 10 feet north of the edge of the home so that it starts to have a radius and then eventually you have the three, as much as possible of a three feet along that common property line over there. It's something to think of to, and we probably need some type of distance to mention. I don't know what works best, but I was just saying 10 feet because that probably starts to get around. I would imagine the house. So that might be something the board would want to think about if they're considering approving as a condition of approval. And obviously the question, and we deal with it from a building inspection perspective as just making sure all the drainage is maintained onto the site. Did you want to address that? Is that something that can be done? Yeah, I can certainly do anything you ask me. The other side of the house though is I can't. Yeah, right. So down with that in mind, do we need to have him amend his motion just to include that language there? Yeah, that would be a good idea. I'm already showing five, I'm already showing from that. We have board, we have discussion amongst ourselves at this point in time. So there's a question, there's an approval, there's a condition that's being talked about. Someone needs to take that into account and decide if we're going as is with nothing or if we want to include that condition. I would include that condition. Okay, so the motion then will include that condition as well as a second? Yes, Lindy did second. Yeah, okay. Any further questions, comments? Discussion? I guess my only question to the board would be I understand his, the vacant land owner, his point, I understand where he's talking about green space and air space. But I guess I look at the standpoint that he's only being or using a nine foot driveway. So it's not like he's going the full 11 and a half feet. So it will give a little bit it's just, it's a sad decision to have to make for three inches, it really is. It's a very sad decision to have to do. Any further discussion? Okay, so we have the motion with the amended language. When he's improving his property, it's sad because he's trying to make the neighborhood better and improve his driveway and improve his property and it's just, it's very sad. Okay, so all in favor of the motion? Should we call it, should I do a roll call? I think we should do a roll call. Okay, Don Gerber, Ed Suric, Keeley Johnson. Undecided. We'll come back to Keeley, Don Sviton. Yes, I agree. Richard Lindy, Kevin Samson. Chair votes aye. And Keeley Johnson. I deny. Keeley denied, motion passed. Okay, thank you folks. Thank you, thank you. The motion was approved. This is your. The variance was approved with the condition that approximately 10 feet north of the northwest corner of the home that the driveway starts to veer at that point and then hits the three feet from that point on. So that's what the decision is made and we are moving on to the next item. And sir, if you'd like to call me tomorrow, we can certainly speak more. Yeah. If you want to go downstairs at this point in time, it's the building inspection office. Just ask for Steve Sokolowski's card and they'll give you that. Thank you. All right. Okay, moving on to the next item. We have 3.4 variance application by Alejandro Alvarez requesting to build a six foot high fence within their required street yard at 2304 South 9th Street. Mr. Alvarez. Ma'am, could you come up to the microphone please and speak and let us know, pull it down and then let us know what you're after and why you're making the request that you're after. Well, a six foot fence, we have a four foot but it's open all the way. And we just want to close it to be able to have some privacy. Oh, it's a side yard. Don, you have to, Don, you have to press the button, please. Right now, you just want to replace it with a six foot fence. Yes, that's all I want to do. But it's on the side yard. So the issue here is the tip one that we've run into on a number of occasions where a person has a corner lot looking for some additional privacy. The concern ends up usually being the style of fence because it's being put right in the street yard. Right now, you can see the picket fence that was there. That's code compliant and 50% open. This is what they want to do, which is not, it is close, but often our discussion is the board on board or vinyl fences along street frontages from the standpoint of how visible they are. So that's oftentimes been the concern we've had are the aesthetics in terms of what those fences eventually look like. Not saying that these citizens would want to have their things looking weathered and tired, but oftentimes that's what we see throughout the city. Anytime we deal with these street fences and that's why the board has often went with the shadow box design or the vinyl. Okay. Actually, I think the next question would be, is there anybody here that's neighbors that want to speak on this item? No. No, okay. And I know all the neighbors except the new one. Sure. But the, well, I guess in the past, what we suggest for homeowners when they are on a corner is to put, if you're going to use a wood type of material, it needs to be a boxed. So you're able to kind of see through it, not go all the way through the fence. Okay, I think the neighbor, isn't the neighbor, you were talking about that because you were there last night. Who, I'm sorry, who are you pointing? Could you? Yeah, him. Jeff, can you hit your speaker? Not you. Him. Oh, Don. Don? Yeah. There's a fence on the south line, half of it is a shadow box and half of it is this. Okay. So it's a shadow box type fence, we require that to be put in. The interesting fence is right, I'm just replacing it with this, that's all. Or the other option is a vinyl fence. What's a vinyl? I don't know nothing. So it's a material that, I guess, is very low maintenance, always needs to be clean. You know, it can be cleaned very easily with just water or pressure washed if it does get dirty. It's more of the white fence when you see, oh, they're plastic. It's probably a crash to the street, they have that. A vinyl fence, yeah. I think. So we require those two types of fences. Okay. That you can select and the building department would be able to instruct you as to what they look like or what type of fence do you think they are. Oh, I'm pretty sure my husband knows, but. Yeah, but what you selected and showed us a picture of what you would put up is not what we would allow. So this is the type of fencing that we would accept. Okay, and that's a vinyl? It's a vinyl fence. And you can select colors, you're not limited to just having white or off white. You could select a color, but that is the type of other material that we will allow. So either a shadow box or that type of material. Shadow box or. Or a vinyl. Okay. I got it done. Okay. Yeah, okay Steve. The only other comment is their garage comes off of. Yes. Grand Avenue. And I do believe in their survey, they're showing that they're doing a little site triangle. Like they would. A lot of the driveway. So that we want to just make sure is included and that's what's being proposed. So if the board was to approve this, we'd want to make sure from a design perspective or a condition perspective that it's either a shadow box or vinyl if you want to specify one of those. What's done in this corner? That is a picture of the house. Oh, okay. So it's in the middle of the yard. So could we do dog ear thing or no? I don't know, it's no dog ear. Not what we're talking about. It's either going to be shadow box or vinyl. And if they approve that, it's going to be really important that you talk to the building inspector to know specifically what it is you're after. So you're not purchasing or installing the wrong one. Nothing. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve based on using those two types of materials that building inspection will instruct you. Do we have a second? I'll second that. Okay. Quite a few, we got quite a few. Okay. Okay, any further discussion? I call the question. No. All right, Donna's called the question. All right, do I, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Chair votes aye. Motion's been passed. Just talk to our friends down in the city to make sure we get the right kind of fencing. Okay, do we go down to building inspection? That's correct. You'll deal with that. I reckon building inspection. Tell your husband you did it. You got it. Tell him to get the building inspection and get your permits for your fence. Thank you. Good job. Okay, next item, 3.5. We have a variance application by Michael Hemeister requesting to replace part of his existing driveway, which is closer than three feet to the property line, which is allowed, and extend the driveway and an additional nine feet, which would also be closer than three feet to the property line at 2503 North 8th Street. And we have Mr. Hemeister up here right now. That's what the problem I have right now is I try replacing existing, about a third of my existing driveway. Person that put it in, oh, what, 2003? Supposed to pitch it away from the house. Well, it comes toward the house and the foundation does leak as a result of that. So I wanna correct that problem. As far as extension is concerned, when I did floor that driveway 15, 20 years ago, I had a parking pad put alongside the garage. It's not quite long enough. I regretted that shortly after I put that in and seeing as I have the opportunity, I figured I would actually put it in and be much, much more useful. It would fit in with the yard better than what it is right now and give me ample space to park what I need to park there. Would the driveway take up more than 50% of your yard, meaning grass? No. There's, from the end of the driveway to the lock itself is 180 feet deep, from the end of the driveway to the, of where the driveway will end with the extension to the very back of the yard that would be an additional 75 feet. Okay. Any other questions? Your neighbor doesn't object to that? Nope. Because you're really tight there. It is tight there. I have a 40 foot lot line. That's why I have to. Do you wanna do it on the south side? Is that what I'm understanding? Pardon me? You wanna put the cement on the south side of your house? Yes. Okay. Yeah, he has no problem with it. It's just an extension from the driveway that's there right now, actually. Well, other than the fact that I'm taking out part of that driveway and replacing it again, but... And it'll be concrete. It's not gonna go any closer to his lot than what we already are. And it is concrete? Yes. Okay. Steve, any issues from the city standpoint? There was not an objection or the staff was fine. Okay, with it. Make a motion to approve. Do we have a second? A second. So we have a motion to approve in a second. Do we have any further discussion? Okay. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Motion passed. Thank you very much. Thank you. You're welcome back. All right. Item number 3.6, variance application by Timothy and Deborah Davis requesting to build a roof over their porch on the front of their house. A covered porch is not allowed within the required front yards at 3723 South 16th Street. Mr. and Mrs. Davis, you're both more than welcome to come on up. Sure. Yes. We wanna put a gavel up. We had a stoop and it the, can't think of the name of it. The soffit only covers half of it. Okay. And we wanna extend it out to the stoop no further than what the stoop originally was. So that's the front of the house that you see before you, everybody right now on the screens. And then Mr. and Mrs. Davis, you can correct me if I'm wrong here. And then this is the section that they're looking at to extend the small sidewalk patio over here as well as the gavel. Yep. And I believe there are some neighbors here as well for this one. Yep, okay. Please, if you have any questions or objections, please feel free to come on up. Everybody signing right? Yes. Hi. Hi. Excuse me. My name is Carol Vitella Vansluis. I'm in the house just north of them. I received this correspondence saying that it was not allowed and I'm a bit confused because I bought the house in 2014 and it has a covered porch probably the same size. I haven't measured, but probably the same size as what they are talking about. I just wanna say that I have lived in a lot of different states, had a lot of different homes, had a lot of different neighbors, some that I would not want to have as the neighbors again. They are fantastic neighbors. They keep their yard shape. And I mean, if you look on there, you can see our house has that one right there. Yes. Has. Oh yeah, she does have a part. I don't know. I haven't seen any plans. I haven't talked to them, but if it's anything similar and I'm sure the city would let them put in a dump, I don't know why. Am I out of variance then? I mean, I bought the house in 2014 that had the covered porch. And I'm assuming that they're gonna. No, you are, as is, your house is okay. Typically there's a minimum of a 15 foot setback requirement in order to cover a porch and they're inside that. So that's why they're here requesting that today. Your home was constructed. Who knows, I don't know, 50s a while ago and it had that in there. So there's no issues whatsoever. We typically, anytime there's a variance, send notice to property owners to be aware, hey, the neighbors next door are looking for something so that you have the opportunity to participate and learn more about it and speak for against it or not to object at all. But that was the reason. So there's nothing up with your property whatsoever. It's more of the Davis's looking to do something similar. Okay, I had absolutely no objections. They're fantastic neighbors, as I say, and they keep their property, their yard probably looks better than our front yard lots of times because they mow it more often. We won't keep that on the record. Thank you, thank you very much. Mr. Ms. David, oh, there we go. My name is Kimberly Burroughs. That's my mom, I live with her. I have seen no objection either to them putting a covering over their porch. They have a very beautiful home and there are other houses in surrounding areas that look way worse than what's already existing. And I think it would add curb appeal. I think it would make the other homes look good as well. And I think it's something to add to make the neighborhood look nice. It's not something that they're trying to do to devalue the homes in the neighborhood. It's something that they're trying to improve and for their family make it enjoyable for when they have grandkids over and their children over that they can sit out under a covered porch. It's just a covered porch. I don't believe it's something that is extreme out of the box that they're asking for. And I, like my mom said, they are awesome people and they deserve, they've worked hard. And they deserve to be able to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's nice to see neighbor support. We appreciate that. Yeah, right. Do we have any... I'd like to make a motion to approve. Okay, we have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Can't we have a second? Can't we have a second? Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Chair votes aye. Motion passed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yeah. All right, last item. You would just go to building inspection and probably it's here. I just want to make sure that my name is spelled correctly. My first name, I told you of that. And I'm sure I spelled it correctly on the application. I'm sure it is. All right, sounds good. Sorry about that. That's okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anything else? That's it. When I talked with the people downstairs as far as easements and so on, now I'm under the understanding that patios don't necessarily need an easement, but I want to verify that and get it approved if on the north side of my house, I have a section of patio that I want to replace. It's existing concrete right now, but it had floated a bit. So I want to replace it, but that is also right up to the property line. You'll have to speak to Jeff Lutsky on that, our building inspector, and he can speak to you on that. Okay, I did include pictures of that too when I asked for the variance or easement, rather. Jeff, do you want to address that? Because that was not part of the request. Yes, it was. It should have been, I guess, because I did send you pictures of that, of the patio section as well. Okay, so pictures, but was it written in the request for the patio? Turning existing gravel driveway into cement driveway. Oh, nope, not that one. Not that one. We spoke a lot about that one. Let's see, replace part of existing driveway and extend it nine feet, replace patio concrete. Does say replace patio concrete. So what are we talking about? I guess we should revisit. I'm glad you came back. Pardon me? Glad you came back. Yeah, that was a good one. I am too. Yeah, and I am a judge. So that patio is this other, would you be able to bring the, yeah, oh, I'm on the wrong one. Thank you. This right here, are you referring to this section up here? Yes. And that's existing already. That is already existing. Concrete. It's just that it's Do you have a photo of that one in here? I did send you photos. I just didn't know if you knew offhand. Is that in this? That there section is the back of the driveway area where, so let's see if I can, right there. You can see how it's where the green lettering is in the upper, yeah. It says save that part of the concrete. I'm going to be leaving there. There's, it says save right at the bottom and also toward the top of the picture and green letters. You can say it's AVE, right? That concrete is going to stay there. Where it has the R, that's going to be removed. The next piece will be removed. And then there's a section that's between that save section and the deck itself that would be coming out and it would be re-poured, same size. It's just that it would be poured. So I poured that 30 years ago and that part of it, unfortunately, I didn't know how to pin it to the old concrete. So it floated away from the existing concrete. Created quite a bump that is actually quite hazardous as far as walking is concerned. So I want to take those out, have it put in properly so it stays put and it's. Okay, very good. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Jeff. So we have two things with this. One, patios don't require a building permit, which that's one aspect of it. The other aspect is existing concrete that's closer than three feet to a property line can be replaced as is whereas without a variance. Gotcha, okay. That's our ordinance. Oh, okay, okay. Or whoever made the motion could just add it. Would be required. To that it would be approved. Yeah, okay. Because I don't think anybody would object. I don't think so. To having you report that. So we're good either way. Yeah. Okay. Just want to make sure. Yeah, I'm glad you did. Thank you. I'm glad you did. Thank you much. All right. Do I have the motion to adjourn? So cool. Any second? It's all in favor to adjourn? Second. Opposed? First, second. Yeah. All right. Thanks everybody. Thank you. That was a good first one. Thank you. Thank you so much. That was a good first one to start that off.