080326 Board of Zoning and Housing Appeals Agenda and Supporting Documents.pdf

BOARD OF ZONING AND HOUSING APPEALS August 3 , 202 6 6 : 3 0 P.M. Lake Vista Conference Room 8040 S. 6 th Street Oak Creek, WI 53154 (414) 766 - 7000 Randy Gregorek – Chair Donald Garcia Dwyer Stacey Henne Daniel Jakubczyk Peter Wagner Richard Yerkey The City’s Vision Oak Creek: A dynamic regional leader driving the future of the south shore. Visit our website at www.oakcreekwi.org for the agenda . 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes – January 5, 2026 4. Hearing of file a. Case #26-003, DSJ General Contracting LLC 10001 S. 13th St., Tax Key: 926-0043-000 (Aldermanic District #5), 5. Deliberate the request of DSJ General Contracting LLC 6. Action on Case #26-003 Adjournment. Dated this 22nd day of July 2026 Posted 07/22/26 sd Public Notice Upon reasonable notice, a good faith effort will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals through sign langua ge interpreters or other auxiliary aid at no cost to the individual to participate in public meetings. Due to the difficulty in finding interpreters, r equests should be made as far in advance as possible preferably a minimum of 48 hours. For additional information or to request this service, contac t the Oak Creek City Clerk at 414-766-7000, or by mail at 8040 S. 6 th Street, Oak Creek, Wisconsin 53154. It is possible that members of and possibly a quorum of members of other governmental bodies of the municipality may attend the above-stated meeting to gather information; no action will be taken by any governmental body at the above -stated meeting other than the governmental body specifically referred to above in this notice 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MONDAY , JANUARY 5 , 202 6 6 : 3 0 p.m. Chairman Gregorek called the meeting to order at 6: 3 1 p.m . The following Board Members were present at roll call: Member s Bodette , Jakubczyk , Henne , and Wagner. Member s Lipp , Yerkey and Garcia - Dwyer w ere absent . Also present: Planner Nic D’Amato . Approval of Minutes - May 5, 202 5 Member Bodette m oved to approve the minutes of the May 5 , 202 5 meeting . Member Henne seconded. On roll call, all voted aye. C ASE 2 6 - 00 1 NICOLE AND CHRISTOPHER REIMESCH 607 E. RAWSON AVE. TK#: 766 - 9997 - 000 Member Gregorek called the hearing to order at 6:15 p.m. The Board heard sworn testimony from appellant Nicole Reimesch , 607 E. Rawson Ave., Oak Creek , WI . Ms. Reimesch described the steps she and Mr. Reimesch had already taken in the hopes of building a new garage: updated plat of survey, co - ordination with neighbors to correct existing plats, relocation of gas line, and working with contractors to explore other options for placement of the garage. Ms. Reimesch described the flooding in the rear of the house and the hilly and treed nature of the back yard. She stated that adding impervious surface to the rear yard would exacerbate the flooding situation for her and her neighbors. The current house is situated in the center of the lot; placing the garage where proposed would not infringe on the required front setback. The residence is also situated in a more commercial area. Setting the garage in front of the house would not present an eyesore for the existing businesses or neighbors. Chairman Gregorek asked Ms. Reimesch if the flooding she described also affected the neighbors. Ms. Reimesch replied that it did. Chairman Gregorek confirmed the proposed location of the garage with the applicant. Member Bodette asked the applicant to indicate where the gas line was relocated to from its original position. The Board heard sworn testimony from Christopher Reimesch , 607 E. Rawson Ave., Oak Creek, WI . Mr. Reimesch described the location of the gas line. Member Bodette questioned how far the gas line was from the western edge of the slab or house. Mr. Reimesch estimated the line was nine to ten feet away from the edge of the slab. 2 Chairman Gregorek asked the applicants to clarify the dimensions of the proposed shed. Mr. Reimesch stated it was 24 ft x 40 ft. Member Henne asked if it was possible to build the garage next to the existing house. B oth Reimeschs responded that there was not enough room to build on either to side of the house and meet the required setbacks. The Board heard sworn testimony from Planner Nic D’Amato. Member Wagner asked Planner D’Amato to confirm the required setbacks for a detached accessory building from both the home and lot line. Planner D’Amato stated five feet from the lot line and ten feet from the house. Member Wagner questioned if , with the proper fire rating, the accessory building could be place d five feet from the home. Planner D’Amato explained that was not in the Zoning Code; fire rating is covered in the B uilding C ode. Member Wagner asked Planner D’Amato if the accessory building was proposed in any floodplain. Planner D’Amato stated it was not. Member Wagner asked the applicants about any construction alternatives the contractor had offered them , or if there was any engineering report to identify the types of soils on the property. The applicant could not provide any additional information. Member Wagner asked Planner D’Amato to provide a contour map of the property. Planner D’Amato obliged: the contour map indicate d a roughly five - foot slope from the rear of the house to the area the applicants claim floods. Chairman Gregorek asked the applicant to describe any other structures in the back yard. Ms. Reimesch stated there was a raised patio, a play structure, and a small shed. Chairman Gregorek questioned how many feet there were between the house and the west lot line. Mr. Reimesch stated there w ere roughly 35 feet. Chairman Gregorek asked if the contractor ever proposed bringing in fill on which to construct. Mr. Reimesch stated the advice was to build the accessory building where proposed; that adding fill to the lot would likely cause further flooding issues for t he neighbors. Member Bodette questioned if the shed in the rear west corner of the yard also flooded. Both Reimeschs answered that it gets wet. Chairman Gregorek read a letter of support from the neighbors at 535 W. Rawson Ave. into the record. Chairman Gregorek closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m . Deliberation and Findings of Fact Case 2 6 - 001 3 The Board discussed the case and the criteria for each of the “Findings of Fact” as follows: a. Preservation of Intent The proposed accessory structure preserves the purpose and intent of code section 17.0414(a)(7)b. The intent of section 17.0414(a)(7)b is for to allow for two (2) accessory structures to be constructed in the rear and side yards. An accessory structure constructed ahead of the principal structure on the Appellant’s property is set behind the adjacent property’s principal structure. b. Exceptional Circumstances: The principal structure of the property located directly to the west is set back approximately 20 ft. meanwhile the Appellant’s principal structure is set back approximately 110 ft. from the front property line. In turn, the accessory structure proposed is still set back approximately 40 ft. from the furthest extent of the adjacent property’s principal structure. c. E conomic Hardship and Self - Imposed Hardship not Grounds for Variance: Economic hardship or self - imposed hardship do not apply. d. Preservation of Property Rights: Municipal Code Section 17.0414(a)(1) permits two (2) accessory buildings on properties. Granting the variance allows the Appellant to preserve the property rights set forth by the Code. e. Absence of Detriment: Granting the variance would not cause a detriment to adjacent property owners or the public interest. Action Case 2 6 - 001 Member Henne moved that the Board grant a variance from Code Section 17.0 414 ( a ) (7)b, allowing the applicant to construct a garage set between the principal building and the front property line. Member Bodette seconded. On roll call: Member Wagner voted no, all others voted aye . Motion carried . CASE 2 6 - 00 2 DONOHUE & ASSOCIATES 8400 S. 5 TH AVE. TK#: 821 - 9998 - 000 Chairman Gregorek called the hearing to order at 7:43 p.m. The Board heard sworn testimony from Nina Fricano, 260 W. Seeboth St., Milwaukee, WI. Ms. Fricano stated she was the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) Project Manager for the proposed solar panel installation. Ms. Fricano provided basic background information about MMSD and the reason for the proposed pr oject, specifically , to meet 100% of energy needs through renewable energy sources and to reduce MMSD’s carbon footprint by 90% by 2035. The Board heard sworn testimony from Michael Stohl , 3311 Hidden Creek Rd., Sheboygan, WI, Electrical Engineer on behalf of Donohue & Associates. Mr. Stohl provided a visual of the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility (SSWRF) while describing the site layout and topography. 4 Mr. Stohl proceeded to provide specific details of the proposed solar array project and demonstrated the location of the solar panels on the site. The Board heard sworn testimony from Mike Hemmingsen, 1033 Mayfair Rd, Milwaukee, WI, Civil Engineer on behalf of OTIE . Mr. Hemmingsen addressed each of the requested variances: 1. 15’ setback from wetlands with a five - foot undisturbed buffer : • The area selected for the solar array is the flattest on the site and currently has no other uses. • A fence is proposed north of the wetlands. • Preliminary discussions with WI DNR have occurred. • Wetlands have been delineated and approved by DNR. (11 - 7 - 2025 and 11 - 19 - 2025) • Wetlands were not present at site origin. • Stormwater design does not raise any DNR issues. • DNR is weighing whether or not a wetland disturbance permit will be required. • Driven/screwed solar racks cause minimal disturbance to wetlands. Chairman Gregorek asked if there were any plans for future arrays. Mr. Hemmingsen acknowledged that there were, but not in the scope of the current discussion. Chairman Gregorek asked if methods other than driven/screwed solar racking would cause more we tland disturbance. Mr. Hemmingsen replied the other most common method would involve digging a trench. 2. Rear yard or side yard placement : • The principal building as designated for purposes of the public hearing is located next to the lake, meaning the remainder of the site is essentially front and side yard. • The facility cannot be seen from the road. • Regardless of where on site the proposed array could be positioned, it is impossible to place the solar panels in the rear yard because of the lake , hydrology, and future planned uses. • There is not another area on site that would accommodate the size of the solar array being proposed. • Minimal tree removal is required. Member Wagner questioned the location of existing buildings to the south of the proposed solar array site. Member Wagner stated he has previously visited the MMSD site and did not recall if the building being discussed was actually the principal building on site. Planner D’Amato clarified the reason for designating the principal building as such was that the property spans multiple parcels. The designated building is the only structure on the affected parcel, therefore it is the principal structure for purposes of the solar array project regardless of its use. 5 Chairman Gregorek asked for the distance from the proposed solar array to the property to the north. Mr. Hemmingsen stated there is a roughly 90 - foot - wide parcel owned by the City which separates MMSD from the norther property, so the nearest other property would be appro ximately 105 feet. Member Bodette referenced the information packet and questioned what was meant by the statement “the two end point portrait configuration is needed to achieve the project’s energy production goals”. Mr. Hemmingsen explained the panels were at a 25 - degree angle, in a portrait configuration, two tall by one wide. Mr. Hemmingsen further explained the dimensions o f the panels. The proposed configuration allows MMSD to have a smaller footprint for the array than would be possible if required to strictly follow City Code. Member Bodette asked what type of solar panels were proposed. Mr. Hemmingsen stated the panels were bifacial. Discussion ensued as to the orientation of the panels and the relevance to the requested variance. 3. Maximum height of ground - mounted solar panels: • Taller is better for energy collection, snow run off, and undergrowth. • S cale illustrations of the site at ground level from 5 th Ave. were shared. • Fencing will separate the road and fishing pier parking area from the solar array. Chairman Gregorek closed the hearing at 8:01 p.m. Deliberation and Findings of Fact Case 26 - 002 The Board discussed the case and the criteria for each of the “Findings of Fact” as follows: a. Preservation of Intent : The proposed ground - mounted solar field preserves the purpose and intent of code section 17.0301(b). The variance is consistent with the purpose and intent for the regulations for the zoning district that the Appellant’s property is located in. Granting of the variance does not create a permitted use that is otherwise not permitted in the I - 1 zoning district. b. Exceptional Circumstances: Severe topography and the placement of other essential buildings and equipment limits the available land on the property for solar field. The available land is located in an area where wetlands currently exist. The method of construction of driven/screwed solar racking supports limits the intrusiveness of the panels. The Appellant is working with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to mitigate the impact of constructing in wetlands. c. Economic Hardship and Self - Imposed Hardship not Grounds for Variance: Economic hardship or self - imposed hardship do not apply. d. Preservation of Property Rights: Granting the variance is necessary to preserve the Appellant’s property rights to utilize a renewable energy source on the site. 6 e. Absence of Detriment: Granting the variance would not cause a detriment to adjacent property owners or the public interest. Action Case 26 - 002 Member Wagner moved that the Board grant variances from Code Sections 17.0301(b) , 17.0414(p) , and 17.0414(p)(3) , allowing the applicant to construct a ground - mounted solar field within 15 feet of existing wetlands, in the front yard of the facility, at a height of approximately 9.75 feet. Member Henne seconded. On roll call: all voted aye . Motion carried . Election of Vice Chairman Member Wagner nominated Member Jakubczyk as Vice Chairman. Member Henne seconded. On roll call, all voted aye. Discussion/Action Regarding Amending Rules of Procedure Manual Planner D’Amato provided a brief overview of the reasoning for amending the Rules of Procedure Manual and for eliminating the annual meeting. Discussion ensued as to the merits of the proposal. Member Bodette moved that the Board approve an amendment to the 1996 City of Oak Creek Zoning Board of Appeals Rules of Procedure handbook by amending Section 2. A. to state “The Chairman of the Board shall be appointed by the Mayor. At the first meeting of each year, the Board shall elect one of its members as Vic e - Chairperson.”; And to remove Section 3. Meetings, Paragraph B. and re - lettering Paragraphs C. through G. to be re - lettered as B. through F . Member Wagner seconded. On roll call: all voted aye. Motion carried. Chairman Gregorek adjourned the meeting at 9 : 03 p.m . • • TO BE PUBLISHED JULY 22, 2026 CITY OF OAK CREEK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A public hearing for case 26-003 will be held: Date: Monday, August 3, 2026 Time: 6:30 PM Place: Oak Creek City Hall Lake Vista Room 8040 S. 6th Street Oak Creek, WI 53154 Appellant: DSJ General Contracting LLC Donnie Sims N85W16110 Appleton Ave Unit 307 Menomonee Falls, WI 53052 Owner: DSJ General Contracting LLC N85W16110 Appleton Ave Unit 307 Menomonee Falls, WI 53052 Tax Key No.: 926-0043-000 Property location: 10001 S. 13th St. Zoning of Property: Rs-2, Single-Family Residential To Request: A variance from Oak Creek Municipal Code Section 17.0301(a) regarding bulk and dimensional standards addressing the requirements applicable to the development or use of a lot in the Rs-2 Single-Family Residential District – Street facing side yards require a minimum setback of 30 feet. A variance from Oak Creek Municipal Code Section 17.0403(e)(2)g.2, which states “if the garage is in line with the front façade of the home, exclusive of porches, bay windows, or other minor projections, it shall not exceed 50% of the façade’s total width.” If granted, the appellant will be allowed to construct a home with a 10 foot street facing side yard setback and a garage in line with the front of the house exceeding 50% of the façade’s total width. All interested persons wishing to be heard are invited to be present. Dated this 10th day of July, 2026 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF OAK CREEK, WISCONSIN /s/ Randy Gregorek, Chairman PUBLIC NOTICE For questions concerning this notice, please contact the Oak Creek City Clerk at 414-766-7023. PLEASE NOTE: Upon reasonable notice, a good faith effort will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals through sign language interpreters or other auxiliary aid at no cost to the individual to participate in public meetings. Due to the difficulty in finding interpreters, requests should be made as far in advance as possible, preferably a minimum of 48 hours. For additiona l information or to request this service, contact the Oak Creek City Clerk at 414 -766-7023, or by writing to City Hall, 8040 South 6 th Street, Oak Creek, Wisconsin 53154. It is possible that members of and possibly a quorum of members of other governmental bodies of the municipality may be in attendance at the above-stated meeting to gather information; no action will be taken by any governmental body at the above-stated meeting other than the governmental body specifically referred to above in this notice. Page 1 of 2 ZONING ADMINISTRATION 8040 S. 6th Street Oak Creek, WI 53154 Tel: (414)766-7000 oakcreekwi.gov June 2nd, 2026 DSJ General Contracting LLC N85W16110 Appleton Ave., Unit 307 Menomonee Falls, WI 53052 Re: Letter of Denial Permit Application 10001 S. 13th St. Oak Creek, WI 53154 Mr. Sims, The City of Oak Creek is in receipt of a building permit application for a new single- family home on the property located at 10001 S. 13th St. The property is located in the Rs-2 Single Family Residential District. We are unable to approve the permit as it does not meet the standards of the following Municipal Code sections: • Section 17.0301(a), regarding bulk and dimensional standards in the Rs -2 Single-Family Residential zoning district – Street facing side yards require a minimum setback of 30 feet. • Section 17.0403(e)(2)g.2, regarding attached garages on single -family detached homes – Garage in line. If the garage is in line with the front façade of the home, exclusive of porches, bay windows, or other minor projections, it shall not exceed 50% of the façade's total width. You are eligible to apply for a variance from the above section of code which may be granted through a hearing with the Board of Zoning Appeals. Per Code Sec. 17.0804(d)(4), for each variance to be granted, all of the following findings of fact must be found: a. Preservation of intent. No variance shall be granted that is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the regulations for the district in which the development is located. No variance shall have the effect of permitting a use in any district that is not a stated permitted use, accessory use, or conditional use in that particular district. b. Exceptional circumstances . There must be unique circumstances or conditions applying to the lot, parcel, or structure that do not apply generally to other properties of uses in the same zoning classification, and the granting of the variance should not be of so general or recurren t nature as to suggest that the Zoning Ordinance should be changed. Page 2 of 2 c. Economic hardship and self-imposed hardship not grounds for variance. No variance shall be granted solely on the basis of economic gain or loss. Self-imposed hardships shall not be considered as grounds for the granting of a variance. d. The variance must be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and same vicinity. e. Absence of detriment. No variance shall be granted that will create substantial detriment to adjacent property or that will materially impair or be contrary to the purpose and spirit of this Zoning Ordinance or the public interest. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, I can be contacted at (414) 766-7026 or via e-mail ndamato@oakcreekwi.gov. Sincerely, Nic D’Amato Planner Location Map Legend Official Street Map Parcels FloodFringe2024 Floodway2024 10001 ± This map is not a survey of the actual boundary of the property this map depicts Community Development 0 0.01 0.02 Miles 997399731000110001 1320132013321332 1000110001 131313131321132113451345 1001110011 S. 13th St. 10001 S. 13th St. W. Lois Ln. -ü RECEIVED JUL 0 6 2026 C]TY OF OAK CREEK OAKffiffiffiffiffi NOTICE OF APPEAL AND APPLICATION FOR RËVIEW BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Please Note: The process for setting up the hearing will NOT begin until verification that all documents have been received along with the $300.00 filing fee. ln order to grart avrlilog tlþ Bord d Zbdrp Apped¡rnud llnd thd AlJ.crltcla lkted on tlþ ttdred üæt ro md ry ilþ propoæd prolect. 1. Name of appellant: DSJ GeneralContracting LLC (Donnie Sims) Mailing address of appellant: N85W16110 Appleton Ave Unit 307 Menomonee Falls Wi 53052 Telephone: 414 595 48¡18 2. Address of property: 10001 S 13th St Oak Creek Present use of property: Vacant Land Proposed use of property: Owner Occupied Single Family Residence 3. Owner's name and address (including city/state/zip), if different than No. 1 above: 4. Has a previous appeal been made with respect to this property? Yes n No Z lf yes, state date: 5 Purpose and grounds of appeal or application. Check below the relief requested by this appeal or application: REQUEST FOR TNTERPREïATTON OF ZONTNG ORDTNANCE AND REVERSAL OF ORDER, REQUIREMENT, DECTSTON OR DETERMTNATTON OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL - Attach a separate sheet listing reasons why you claim this order, requirement, decision or determination is erroneous. n Revised 1/2024 Section 17.0301(a) States street facing side yards require a setback 30 feet. I would like to request for a setback of 10 feet to ate a 30 foot wide home 17,0403(eX2)9.2 Garage shall not exceed 50% of the totalwidth. I would like to request that exceeding 50% be lowed to accommodate a two car garage. U REQUEST FOR VARIANCE - Write reçonæsto the following below. Attæh dditional $eet (s) if needed, a. Variance reÍuested: b. What special conditions exist which will cause practical difficulty or unnecessary hard$ip if thevariance ref ue$ isnot granted: A practical ditficulty and hardship will be caused by compliance with the 30 foot side yard setback. This will create an undue hardship and make construction of reasonable size home impracticable/impossible. The setback requirement would leave room for a buildable area of only 10 feet in width. A home withl0 feet in width is insufficient for a functional home. Therefore a variance is being requested for a reasonable residential structure that will meet setbacks to greatest possible. c. \^/hy the variance ref ue$ed is not contray to the public interes and will not rc and welfare: d. Why the variance requested will be in accord with the spirit of the zoning The constructed home will be in compliance with all building codes and safety requirements. The variance is solely being requested to accommodate the unique dimensions of the lot and allow for reasonable use of the property as a single family residence, The property wont be a tratfic hazard, obstruct emergency access, interfere with public utilities, or adversely affect neighboring perties. it allows for the reasonable residential use of a uniquely lot wh¡lê maintaining the overall character of the hborhood.The proposed variance will promote orderly provide adequate separat¡on between structures, public safety, and preserve neighborhood aesthetics. Granting variance will still respect the intent of the zoning ordinance and avoid an unnecessary hardship caused by the lot's unique dimensions. By allowing the owner a reasonable use of the lot that would othenryise be unavailable due to the dimensions and corner street facing location. enforcement of the setback requirements would leave an narrow buildable area, preventing the construction of a nctional home. The variance will bring justice in the form of relief from hardship that is unique to this property. Denying the variance would a burden on the owner without corresponding benefit to the public. e. How the variance, if granted, will czuæ sr¡bdantial ju$ice to be done Revised f /2024 6. tr OTHER State relief requested and liS the reasonswhy the lant is entitled to such relief. EACH APPEAL OR APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BYA DRAWING stating the nearest cross streets and address and showing the location and size of the property, existing improvements, all abutting properties and their improvements, and the requested change or addition. t hereby sweor thot, oll of the obove stotements ond the stotements contoined ín my popers or plons submitted herewíth are true to the best of my knowledge ønd belief. Signature of Appellant 06to412026 Date I hereby concur with this submittal of the application for review. Signature of Property Owner if Different From Appellant Date ¡ For Internal Use Only Project #: Date Filed: Hearing Date: Filing Fee Check # or CC: Date Notice Mailed: Parcel #: Revised 1/2024 RECEIVED CIW OF OAK CREEK JUL 0 6 2026 B9ARD OF zONtNG AppEALS clrPoeffif üfiSætion 17.0S04(d) of the Oak Creek MunicipalCode, the followlng criteria are used by the Board of Zoning Appeals to make their decisions. ln order to grant evrlrrce, tho Bord mrË f lrd thtt ALJ.of the crltqlabolow üe md. Please includewrittgr roÐonsto eæh of thefollowing in your applicdion f or 4peal. Attæh an dditiond $eet if necessary. Preservation of Inten* No variance shall be granted that is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the regulations for the district in which the development is located. No variance shall have the effect of permitting a use in any district that is not a stated itted use, use, or conditional use in that rticular district. Étgeptlortd Grq¡mderoæ There mu$ be unilue circumstancesor conditionsapplying to the lot or parcelor Sructurethat do not applygenerallyto other propertiesof uæsinthesameæning clasdf ication, and the granting of the varimce $rould not be of so general or recurrent naturesas &onomlc Hrdüip srd $f-lm@ He$þ not Gromde for Valanoe: No Vaiance $all be granted mlely on the badsof economic gain or loss Self -imposed hard$ips$tall not be ftesndlon d Property Hgtrts The variance mu$ be necessary for the preærvdion and enjoyment of s.lbsantial property rightspoæsæd byother propertiesin the same æning district and same vicinity. Abænceof Ddrlmgrt: No variance Srall be granted thaû willcrede srb$antialdetriment to djacent property or thd will mderidly impair or be contrary to the purpose and çirit of this ordinance or the public intere$. e proposed requested variance will not be detrimentalto adjacent propert¡es or material impair. The home will be compat¡ble with neighboring properties. lt will not impact property values, access, safety, or the use and enjoyment of public nterest var¡ance preserues the intent of the zoning ordinance by allowing the property to be for its intended residential use. While maintaining the ordinance underlying bjectives. The variance is relief necessary to permit a res¡dential home unique 50 feet lot dimension on a street facing corner leaves an unreasonably narrow building area of just 10 feet in width. Making construction of a functional home impractical. This hardship is caused by the lot's placement and phys¡cal dimensions. The hardship is not self imposed because it results from the existing lot dimensions and r street facing placement. Not from any action taken by owner. The lot's limited creates the need for the variance. ranting the variance wil provide the owner the same nghts and enjoyment afforded to ( propert¡es n the same vicin ity Without the variance the owne r rs unable to make use of the intended purpose of the land. Revised 1/2024 furuirementsfor Appedq Vcimceq, aË Boundry Disputæfor Floodpldns Any applicdion f or an appeal, variance relues, or diçute regarding f loodplain determindionsand/or boundaries$all include the additional inf ormation f or the speclf ic sit ud ion as detailed below. Appedsof Farmit Denide 1. Land Uæ Permit applicdion ddalisted in Sec. 1/.0801(bX2). 2. Floodway/f loodf ringe determindion ddain Sec. 7.0309(e). 3. Hydrzulic and hydrologic analyæscalculding the effectsof the proposal on the regional f lood height to determine the eff ectsof the proposal according to Sec. 1/.0306(9) and f/.0801(bX2Xc). The analyds muS be completed by a regi$ered prof es$onal engineer in the stde of \Msconsin. 4. Any other upplemental ddain support of the applicdion. Vaiarcee - Provide writ t en responses t o demon$ rd e t hd : 1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will caræ unnecessary hard$ip; 2. The hard$ip isdue to doption of the f loodplain ordinance and unif ue property conditionsnot commonto adjacent lotsor premiseg and isnot self-created; 3. The variance is not contrary to the public intere$, and will not result in dditional threds to public sdety, extrærdinary expense, crede anuisance, caus f rzud on or victimizdion of the public, or conf lict with exi$ing local larsor ordinances; 4. The variance isconsjstent w¡th the purpoæ of thisordinance assded in Sec. f/.0306(c); 5. The variance $all not cauæ any increase in the regional f lood elevdion; 6. The variance granted isthe minimum necessary, considering the f lood hazard, to df ord relief ; 7. The variance will not grant, extend or increæ any us prohibited in the æning di$rict; 8. The variance will not allow ætionswithout the amendmentsto thisordinance or map(s) rer uired in Sec. 1/.0804(f X8); 9. The variance will not allow any alterdion of an hi$oric $ructure, including its use, which would preclude itscontinued de$gndion asan historic sructure; 0. The variance will meet all of the 4plicable f loodproof ing $andardsin Sec. î/.0804(iX4). Boundry Diçntæ The Board will utiliæ f lood elevdionsor prof ilesto locaûe boundariesthaû hare been esabli$ed by approximde or detailed f loodplain studies Applicantsshall provide a detailed written ref ue$ and any arailable technical evidence to s.rpport the claim as part of the applicdion package. lf t he det ermind ion is made t hd t he boundøy is incorrect ly mpped, t he applicant (s) mu$ apply f or amap amendment according to Sec. 7.0804(f XB). Revised 1/2024 W LOIS LnW LOIS Ln S 13th StS 13th StNorth Property Line = 50'South Property Line = 50'West Property Line = 139'East Property Line = 139'Lot Area = 6,950,00 FTProperty Address: 10001 S. 13th StreetZoning District: RS-2 Residential DistrictProject Type: Proposed Single-FamilyTax Key / Parcel Number: 9260043000 parcel numberSTREETS 13th StreetStreet Side Yard9260043000Parcel number50'184' 139'32'-9" 139' 97' 549'30'30' 30'30'Required Yard SCALE:INDICATEDDATE:STAMP:STYLE:SINGLESHEET:A001SUBJECT:Kiké Baldeon (414-458-8611)BY:LOCATION:REV:REV:REV:REV: 6/25/2026FAMILY10001 South 13th Street, OakCreek, WI 53154.VARIANCE REQUEST 110'150'30'30'10'Existing HouseAREA:1,992.00 Square FtExisting HouseAREA:1,985 Square Ft SITE PLAN1A-108'24'56'120' W LOIS LnS 13th St9260043000Parcel number50'184' 139'32'-9" 139' 97' 30'30' 30'30'Required Yard SCALE:INDICATEDDATE:STAMP:STYLE:SINGLESHEET:A002SUBJECT:Kiké Baldeon (414-458-8611)BY:LOCATION:REV:REV:REV:REV: 6/25/2026FAMILY10001 South 13th Street, OakCreek, WI 53154.VARIANCE REQUEST 110'S 13th St30'-2"30'60'62'-9"Required SetbacksYard Type Required SetbackFront Yard 30 ftRear Yard 30 ftSide Yard 10 ftStreet Side Yard 30 ft 45'-11"10'Existing HouseAREA:1,992.00 Square FtExisting HouseAREA:1,985 Square Ft SITE PLAN1A-204'12'28'60' W LOIS LnS 13th St9260043000Parcel number50'139' 32'-9" Required YardS 13th St 30'-2"SCALE:INDICATEDDATE:STAMP:STYLE:SINGLESHEET:A003SUBJECT:Kiké Baldeon (414-458-8611)BY:LOCATION:REV:REV:REV:REV: 6/26/2026FAMILY10001 South 13th Street, OakCreek, WI 53154.PROPOSED SETBACKS HOUSEPORCHGARAGE DECK60' 10'30'10'30'30' 40' 40' Proposed YardProposed houseVARIANCE JUSTIFICATION – 10001 S. 13th Street1.Preservation of Intent**The proposed variance is consistent with the intent of the RS-2 Residential District. The property willremain a single-family residence and will maintain the residential character of the neighborhood.2.Exceptional CircumstancesThe subject property is a corner lot with unique dimensional constraints. Because the east property line isclassified as a street-facing side yard, a 30-foot setback is required, significantly reducing thebuildable area. This hardship results from the lot configuration and zoning requirements, not fromactions of the applicant.3.Economic Hardship and Self-Imposed HardshipThe request is not based on economic gain or convenience. The hardship is caused by the physicalcharacteristics of the lot and is not self-created.4.Preservation of Property RightsThe variance is necessary to allow reasonable residential development of the property and to provide useand enjoyment similar to other residential properties in the area.5. Absence of DetrimentThe proposed variance will not negatively impact neighboring properties, public safety, drainage, visibility,or the character of the neighborhood. The street-facing side yard borders a public roadway ratherthan an adjacent residence.The requested variance represents the minimum relief necessary to allow reasonable residentialdevelopment while remaining compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 10'20'42'-11"Building-to-building distanceBuilding-to-building distance “Absence ofDetriment” Existing HouseAREA:1,992.00 Square Ft Existing HouseAREA:1,985 Square Ft SITE PLAN1A-302'6'14'30'