The saga of Tyler and his request for a second curb cut has fully come to an end. For Tyler himself, the issue was resolved at the 03/03/2021 Common Council meeting at which he was granted his appeal for a second curb cut, but his legacy continued on because the situation prompted the Common Council to review the current city policy of allowing neighbors to unilaterally prevent the administrative issuance of a second curb cut permit. The Municipal Services Committee weighed the matter and voted unanimously to recommend removing the requirement that neighbors not object to a curb cut. [Though it should be noted, that vote was only unanimous because Alderperson Cory Otis (District 15) was not present when the item was discussed and voted on.]
The Municipal Services Committee recommendation was then discussed and voted on by the full Common Council at the 03/17/2021 meeting.
Alderperson Joe Prohaska (District 14) opened the discussion by stating that the Municipal Services Committee didn’t think there was a need for a neighbor to stop a process that the city has already spent a lot of time and expertise determining is acceptable. They felt that it’s a redundant rule and should be removed.
Alderperson Otis apologized for not being at the part of the committee meeting where they discussed this motion. He missed the vote due to a doctor’s appointment. He agreed that neighbors should not be able to veto another neighbor’s projects but did not think that was what this policy did. In his opinion, the current policy was not a veto but instead just extended the process, and he thought they saw that process work at the last Common Council meeting. [Alderperson Otis, however, was one of the 6 alderpersons who voted against granting the curb cut, and his reasoning at the time seemed very much to suggest he viewed the 5th requirement as a veto. To quote from my previous recap, “Alderperson Corey Otis (District 15) said he thought Kari and Mike stated their case pretty well, and he did not support the curb cut. The applicant for the second driveway met 4 of the 5 criteria for the driveway opening, but the 5th one is that the neighbors–two neighbors to each side–are basically surveyed on whether they approve. He said that if you look at the map you’ll see that essentially Kari and Mike are Tyler’s only neighbor. There is a park across the street and they’re the only two houses at the end of that block, so Kari and Mike are really the only people affected and they strongly object to the curb cut. He thought this was a case where they let the neighbors figure it out. He had a hard time stepping in as a Common Council member and ruling in this case when they haven’t exhausted all of their opportunities or options. His final point was why do we have this policy with these 5 criteria? It seems like this was not their place to step in so he would ask them to vote this down.”]
Alderperson Otis said the policy compels neighbors to communicate and potentially compromise. He pointed out that it’s not always a natural thing for neighbors to reach out and discuss what’s going on on their lots. Ultimately the Council can decide if there’s a disagreement or dispute, and he thought that’s what happened a couple weeks ago. He wanted to know if the City of Appleton had other policies that similarly required neighbors to be notified so they could weigh in on the decision.
Director Paula Vandehey said she was trying to think of anything where specifically neighbors weigh in. She said they definitely have policies where, if the request is denied administratively by staff based on the policy, that the appeals process is through the committee of jurisdiction. She felt that they were using that same process in this case.
Aldereprson Otis asked if the Common Council would have denied the request to cut the curb and put in the second driveway then the neighbors went back and discussed and came up with a compromise, could Tyler reapply and, if all the 5 criteria are met, have his request be automatically administratively approved.
Director Vandehey confirmed that was correct.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) said he tended to agree with alderperson Otis’ assessment that the neighbor’s objection was not a veto. He said that the City of Appleton does have other policies and the one which came to mind is the policy regarding the placement of a sculpture next to someone’s house. He thought the resolution they were coming to for a number of these types of issues is to establish a notification policy to let constituents know that something’s going to happen and that they may want to voice their opinion before it lands in front of them like the Collective sculpture did. He agreed with Alderperson Otis and did not support the striking of item number 5. [Note: The Art In Public Places Policy is substantially different from the second curb cut policy. It only applies to art placed on public property and not to artwork on private property. It also does not allow neighbors to unilaterally halt the placement of public art, but only provides notification regarding the art that is being considered for installation so that residents have the opportunity to attend the meetings where the art placement will be voted on and voice their concerns about it.]
Aldereprson Prohaska disagreed with Alderperson Otis and pointed out that the neighbor who took issue with the second driveway actually said that Tyler should move. He saw no room for compromise there, but because the neighbor objected, according to the current policy Tyler had to go all the way through the appeals process in order to do something that the city was already okay with and that city rules and regulations allowed. The city rules allowed the garage [I think he meant driveway], but the Common Council was discussing it just because one person didn’t like it. Alderperson Prohaska didn’t think that was right.
Alderperson Patti Coenen (District 11) saw this differing from the placement of sculptures that Alderperson Schultz had compared it to. The subdivision was laid out with covenants that allowed for auxiliary buildings to exist. The city can put a curb cut in. That was not new. Those were all things that were allowed and in place before either party bought or built their house. She supported the change.
Alderperson Michael Smith (District 10) was concerned that this discussion was all focused on the recent item that had come before them, but the policy has been in effect since 1997. He didn’t think there had been a whole lot of contentious issues over this policy and he thought it did what alderperson Otis said–i.e. bring neighbors together to discuss if there is a point that’s missed or a disagreement between neighbors. He was going to vote no against removing the policy. The current discussion was focusing on the recent incident, not looking long term at the past or at the future.
Mayor Woodford clarified that Smith wanted Director Vandehey to talk about past incidents.
Director Vandehey said there have only been a handful of cases that have come to the committee as an appeal. The vast majority of curb cut requests are approved administratively.
Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) urged his colleagues to support removing this restriction. He thought that the current policy came down to a neighbor’s preference as to what a property owner could or could not do with their property. He pointed out that this was very narrowly about a curb cut, but in this instance he thought a lot of opposition was to the garage that the curb cut was linked to. [Note: the neighbors had no say in whether the garage was built.] He stated that the curb cuts themselves are not as big of a change as if a neighbor’s building something in their backyard such as a gazebo, fenced in area, or other major changes like that. He didn’t think the Council needed to weigh in on something like this and that the four other requirements were fine.
Aldereprson Otis wanted to clarify that if they removed requirement number 5 then there would be no notification to neighbors in these types of situations.
Director Vandehey confirmed that was correct.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) urged her colleagues to vote in favor of removing the restriction. She thought it was something they were only going to start seeing more of. Her neighborhood was built before this policy came out and the houses are now changing over. Almost nobody’s building in an open space anymore. She could only see this policy causing more trouble in the future.
The Common Council then voted 11-4 to remove the restrictions with Alderpersons Kyle Lobner (District 13), Michael Smith, Alex Schultz, and Corey Otis voting nay.
Thus the saga has come to an end. One man’s simple appeal to build a second driveway has resulted in the end of a 2 decades old city policy.
View full Common Council meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=825734&GUID=3BA63E0C-B886-48F5-87C4-4C47B4CA644D&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply