The Board of Zoning Appeals met 02/21/2022 and took up two variance requests one of which was for a residential property on Fremont Street. The property owner wanted to install an 8’x21’ deck in the front of their house that would be 15’ off of the front property line.
Section 23-93(g)(4) of the municipal code requires front yards of residential properties to be a minimum of 20’.
City code also included an exception that stated, “If a lot is within one hundred (100) feet of existing buildings on both sides of the lot, the minimum front yard setback shall be a straight line drawn from the two (2) closest front corners of the adjacent building on each side.” This exception did apply in this case and would give the property owner a little more space, but still not enough to build an 8-foot-wide deck.
Usually when the Board of Zoning Appeals meets, they only have 4 members present. This time there were 5. In order for a variance to be granted, 4 of those members would need to vote in favor of the variance.
The property owners themselves either were not present at the meeting or did not speak. Rather, Kirsten from Tundraland Home Improvements which was the contractor for the project spoke.
Board Chairman Paul McCann asked if she could fill in any additional information that might give the board an indication of what the hardship would be if the variance was not approved.
She said that the hardship would be that they don’t have a lot of space in their back yard, so the front yard is the only space where they could put a deck. “Community isn’t really just the people you share your lot lines with. You know, having a deck in the front yard, they can interface with community, you can see your neighbors walking by, and really just, you know, get that sense of being a part of that community. And like I said, just because they don’t really have a lot of space in their back yard.”
Chairman McCann said it seemed like there was room in the back yard to build some kind of patio or personal space behind the house and that they didn’t need to build it in the front yard setback. “Am I missing something as to the shape of the lot or the usage of the lot?”
Kirsten said that the way the buildings are set and especially the way their driveway comes back didn’t give them as much open space as the front yard, especially if they wanted to build across the entire length of their house.
Somebody asked a question off microphone which, based on the answer, I’m guessing was about what sort of conforming structure could be built.
Kirsten answered that they could build a 3’x3’ stoop.
Chairman McCann said that in the back of the house there was room to install a 20’x20’ deck and still be within code as opposed to an 8’x21’ deck in the front that was not within code. It seemed like there was 3 or 4 times the space in the back yard as there was in the front.
Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen spoke up and wanted to mention that there was an exemption in Section 23-50 of the municipal code. If the neighboring properties were closer to the property lines than the 20-foot setback laid out in code then you could draw a line between the corners of those legally non-conforming properties and that would be the new legal setback for the property.
In this case, however, that setback still did not give the applicants the full space they were seeking to build their deck. Additionally, the setback line that results when utilizing this exemption will not necessarily end up being parallel to the sidewalk but instead is a straight line from the corner of one property to the corner of another property. If both of those properties are the same distance back from the street, then the line will be parallel with the street, but if one property is 8’ from the sidewalk and the other is 12’ from the sidewalk then the setback line that results will end up being diagonal.
Inspections Supervisor Craanen called up the property on the city’s property viewer and drew some lines to illustrate.
[His illustration was not shown on the video of the meeting, so I’ve drawn a couple of my own to demonstrate the idea. I’m not sure which points he used to draw the line. Chairman McCann mentioned that, in the drawing, the left side of the deck was 2 feet wide and the right side was 6 feet. The closest I got to that was 2.8’ on the left and 4.9’ on the right. Additionally, I was a little confused as to what constitutes the “closest front corners” as mentioned in the code. I would interpret a “front” corner to be the part of the house that was nearest the sidewalk. When I drew a line between those two points, I got a deck that was about 7’ on one side and 6’ on the other. Be that as it may…]
The deck that the property owners could build while conforming to even the exception that was laid out in city code would not be as large as they wanted nor would it be shaped properly.
Ultimately, Chairman McCann said that the concern overall is that the board was required to identify a hardship—a reason why it was unreasonable to require this property to be compliant with the existing code. In this case, however, the property didn’t seem to have any usual topography or shape, nor did it lack another area where they could build deck structure. Unless the board was missing something or the applicant had some further ideas as to what the hardship might be, he thought they were going to have a difficult time granting a variance.
Kirsten answered that, unfortunately, at this time any problems or access issues.
Chairman McCann mentioned that on occasion they did have people with accessibility issues, when someone needs a ramp but installing the ramp would encroach in the setback area. In those cases, they understand that there’s no other way to install those ramps.
But that was not a factor in this situation.
The board members had no further questions to Chairman McCann entertained a motion on the variance. Board member Scott Engstrom made a motion that the variance be approved. He did this not because he intended to vote in favor of the variance but to make it more clear for the record that a no vote was opposed to the variance. [I don’t understand why the Board of Zoning Appeals doesn’t just automatically start out their discussion by making a motion to approve whatever variance request is before them.]
Mr. Engstrom thought that the issue was largely and almost entirely self-created and there wasn’t anything particularly unusual about the lot that would necessitate deviation from the code.
There was no further discussion and the board voted unanimously to deny the variance request.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=926541&GUID=0C7CC846-52F4-4E5F-8BCE-13CDCA5B4E80
Be the first to reply