Muskego planning commission defers approval for unmanned clothing donation bin at Janesville Road

The Muskego City Planning Commission on Sept. 2 deferred a request by RD Cycle to amend a building site and operation plan so an unmanned clothing donation bin could remain on property at 16555 Janesville Road.

City planning staff said the green bin was discovered during a recent occupancy inspection and that no Muskego ordinance explicitly allows that type of outdoor storage or display by right. The request (Resolution PC0372025) asked the commission to allow the donation box on the laundromat/car wash property; the commission voted to defer so staff and the applicant can provide a revised submittal addressing aesthetics, ownership and monitoring.

Why it matters: commissioners said the decision could set a precedent for ‘‘remote’’ or unmanned commercial uses—vending machines, resale drop boxes or automated services—appearing in parking lots without the same controls applied to on-site businesses.

Staff member Adam told the commission the box is about 45 inches by 43 inches by 76 inches, is painted green and includes company stickers showing what is accepted. "This is actually the first bin of this type that has gone through the process to request approval to be here in the city," Adam said. He described two principal concerns for the commission: whether a non‑occupant business should be allowed as an additional use on a commercial parcel, and how to ensure the container’s appearance and immediate cleanup if items accumulate around it.

Darren Leslie, the applicant who said he is based in New Berlin, told the commission the bin has been on the site "over 2 years." Leslie said his company provides weekly pickups and can arrange emergency pickups with notice; he also said he had donated items to small nonprofits in the past. "We supply small nonprofits with the stuff a couple winters ago," Leslie said. "We donated thousands of pairs of winter boots that got dispersed in Wisconsin for free." He also said he owns a number of similar bins in the area.

Commissioners and other speakers pressed for specific limits and enforcement: preferred location adjacent to the building (rather than in a parking stall), color and finish that complement the host building, a shorter review cadence than the annual review proposed in the draft resolution, and stronger contractual ties to the property owner. Several commissioners said the landlord should be a co‑applicant or otherwise be bound to monitor and address overflows; staff said the city can cite property owners for violations on their lots.

The draft resolution that staff originally recommended included: a requirement that donated goods be fully contained inside the bin (any items outside must be removed immediately); inspection of the bin at each pickup; repairs or replacement within three business days if needed; and a one‑year review in March to determine whether approval should be reconsidered.

Commissioners asked staff and the applicant to return with a revised site plan and narrative showing the exact location, a color scheme matched to the building, ownership/co‑applicant information tying the bin to the property owner or an on‑site tenant, and a clearer monitoring/inspection schedule (several commissioners suggested review periods of six or 12 months rather than only annual). Adam will work with the applicant on those revisions and bring the item back at the next meeting. The commission’s motion to defer carried unanimously.

In the interim, commissioners said the existing bin may remain in place while the applicant and staff complete the requested revisions.