Muskego City planning panel denies rustic-structure request after debate over density

The Muskego City Planning Commission voted Feb. 6 to deny a request to designate a barn and related outbuildings as a "rustic structure," concluding the application did not meet the standards commissioners were prepared to enforce.

The application appeared on the agenda as a request for a rustic-structure designation for property listed under the name Brian Ruckerin. Staff and the applicant's representative referred repeatedly during discussion to the owner as "Mr. Wren," who attended the meeting and was represented by Attorney James Hammis. Hammis told the commission the buildings would qualify under the city's rustic-structure provisions and offered a compromise: allow the barn (building 3) to be designated while removing other accessory buildings (numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7) on a staggered schedule tied to lot sales, with a five-year sunset for removal.

"The application is for everything, but we're willing to remove those," Attorney James Hammis said, and he proposed that the removal period "commence the period of time to remove 4, 5, 6, and 7, and there would be a sunset provision of 5 years." Staff described how a rustic-structure designation would exempt an eligible building from counting toward the municipality's 2% accessory-structure square-footage limit.

Commission discussion focused on two core issues: whether the barn is sufficiently "unique" or of historic significance under the city's ordinance, and whether granting the designation would improperly increase density by allowing more accessory-square footage than the code otherwise permits. Several commissioners said the proposal risked creating an exception that would be difficult to defend in future cases and questioned whether the ordinance's language provided a clear standard.

"If this structure is designated as a rustic structure, how does that affect his other buildings?" a commissioner asked, citing the 2% rule. Commissioners also debated enforcement: staff noted the city could issue citations or pursue injunctions if required removals did not occur, but several commissioners said those remedies would be costly and might not solve the density concern.

After debate, a motion to deny the request was made and seconded. Commissioners recorded their votes in a roll call; the motion to deny carried (commissioners cited size and density concerns in their comments). The chair later asked the body to reconsider the earlier tally to correct how members recorded "yes"/"no" relative to the motion language; the commission revoted and the denial was again approved in roll call.

The commission did not adopt the applicant's proposed amendment on the record to specify the removal schedule; staff noted the applicant's offered amendment was discussed but not incorporated into the resolution itself. The item concluded with the denial recorded and the commission moving on to other business.

The commission's action means the barn and accessory buildings remain subject to the city's existing accessory-structure limits unless the applicant returns with a revised proposal that addresses commissioners' concerns about density, enforceability and the ordinance standard for "rustic" designation.