Abele’s Personal Spa, Pool Conservatory Challenged

A missing lighting plan for a proposed 6,816-square-foot pool and spa building planned for the grounds of the National Register-listed Lake Drive mansion of former County Executive Chris Abele obliged the Board of Zoning Appeals to delay a vote on a Dimensional Variance for the project until its September meeting.

The decision was made following a half-hour presentation during a marathon 5-1/2-hour BOZA meeting on July 28th, with members attending both in person and remotely.

The board members heard a request to:

• Allow a fence along the side street that exceeds the maximum height allowed
• Construct an accessory structure (garage) that exceeds the maximum number of accessory buildings
• Exceeds the maximum size
• Exceeds the maximum allowed sidewall height
• Does not meet the minimum required side street setback

Representing Abele at the meeting was Nick Carnahan, the project architect. The plan had already received the approval of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Department of Neighborhood Services, the Department of Public Works and the Department of City Development. Its approval by BOZA would have been routine were it not for the objections of neighbor Suzanne Hupy, who appeared in person with her attorney, Richard W. Donner. Hupy, the wife of Milwaukee personal injury attorney Michael F. Hupy, has lived in her home immediately north of the 65,158-square foot Abele estate for 34 years, she told the board. She said she was concerned that light from the 23 natatorium light fixtures planned for the 2,817-square foot, 19-foot tall glass “Pool Conservatory” segment of the 6,816-square-foot auxiliary structure “will light up my living room, primary bedroom, side yard and front yard.”

“She’s quite concerned about light pollution,” Donner said, adding that the new construction would create a “fundamental change to the neighborhood.”

Architect Carnahan countered that he had provided sworn testimony that the light emanating from the glass pool conservatory “drops off to zero foot-candles well before Ms. Hupy’s property. A chart that illustrated this had been submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission, but was not submitted to BOZA, which proved to be a crucial omission as the meeting progressed.

In a letter to the Historic Preservation Commission prior to its approval of the plan, Donner outlined his client’s concerns:

To our knowledge, there are not any structures in the [North Lake Drive Estates Historic] District that are compatible with the proposed glass pool house. If not properly screened, the height of the modern designed glass pool house will fundamentally change the character of the District and its glass composition will create light pollution issues for the surrounding properties. We request clarification on (i) whether the proposed glass swimming pool enclosure will be visible from the street and/or the Hupy Property, (ii) what steps have been taken to prevent light from the glass pool enclosure being visible at night from the street and/or the Hupy Property, and (iii) what landscaping will the Applicant be required to install to screen the Project from the Hupy Property.

HPC members Matt Jarosz, Patti Keating Kahn, and Sally Peltz voted in favor of the project, with Ald. Robert Bauman and Ann Pieper Eisenbrown opposed. Two members were excused.

At BOZA, Donner also questioned the permissible number of auxiliary structures on the property, which already has two of them —  an original cottage with an 823-square foot footprint fronting Lake Drive and, immediately east of the proposed structure, the original stable, with an 826-square foot footprint. Each has historic preservation protection from demolition, limiting options for the siting of the building.

Architect Carnahan said the site was chosen since it held an original conservatory, since demolished. Additionally, two homes, each just over 1,000 square feet were built on the site in the 1970s and were demolished in the late 1990s.

The Proposed Pool-Spa-Conservatory

The Galbraith Carnahan Architects plan calls for:

• a four-car, 3,227-square foot garage
• a mechanical and pool equipment storage room
• a spa room with whirlpool
• a sitting area
• a pool conservatory
• a kitchen
• a changing room
• a laundry
• a bathroom
• a hall
• additional storage space and
• an outdoor patio

The 6,816-square-foot structure would be at the corner of the property, at the intersection of E. Hartford Ave. and N. Windermere Court, separate from and southwest of the 1913 mansion with its 13,304 square feet of finished living area. The landlocked Hupy residence, which borders Abele’s to the north, is listed as a “mansion” in the assessor’s records (as is the Abele residence). The home, built in 1937, is 4,859 square feet — about 2,000 square feet smaller than Abele’s pool house.

The Saga of Windermere Court

At just over 100 feet in length, N. Windermere Court is among the narrowest, shortest, least populated and least traveled streets in the city. The Hupy property is the only one in the city to bear an address on the street. The street, immediately north of E. Hartford Ave., leads to only two destinations: the driveway of Hupy or the driveway of Abele. Their vehicles must have passed, somewhat awkwardly, many times over the decade-plus that Abele has owned the property, although his occupancy has not been continuous.

Back on July 15th, 2006, Michael Hupy confronted Abele, who had been having a loud party at the home. Hupy entered Abele’s property to complain. Abele, “as a joke,” hurled a lit firecracker over Hupy’s fence, further infuriating the neighbor. Police were summoned. Hupy was cited for trespassing (case dismissed) and Abele, then 39, was fined $175 for the fireworks violation. So there is a history between the two neighbors.

At the BOZA Meeting

The chairman of BOZA is Atty. Roy B. Evans [University of Wisconsin Law School ’79]. He guides his meetings in a calm, deliberate manner, and is a stickler for procedure. When Suzanne Hupy asked to have her photographs of the Abele property submitted for the record, the request was denied on the basis that members attending virtually would not be able to view them. After a half hour hearing from both sides of the debate, Evans asked the board for a motion. This was followed by silence. “What is the pleasure of the board?” Evans asked, with silence again the response. “Is there need for additional information? If not, do we have enough information?” Anything for a motion!

“We are NOT here to resolve disputes,” the chairman continued. Finally, member Eric Lowenberg made a motion to hold the matter pending the submission of additional information, namely the lighting plan that had been submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission but had not been submitted to BOZA.

The motion was granted on a unanimous vote. The board’s next meeting will be held at 4 p.m. on September 8th.