The Board of Zoning Appeals met 05/16/2022 and considered the variance request from the owners of a property on Edgewood Avenue to build a 12×16 foot attached deck at the rear of their property that encroached into the 25-foot rear yard setback.
There was currently an existing deck which had been erected without permits by a previous homeowner. Additionally, the house itself was built so far back on the lot that it already encroached into the 25-foot rear yard setback and had a legal nonconforming rear yard.
The discussion on this variance request was fairly brief, lasting less than 10 minutes, and the Board did end up approving the variance request after modifying it from a request to build within 12 feet of the property line to allowing them to build within 8 feet of the property line.
Kirsten, a Tundraland employee, and Paige, the home owner, appeared to make their case for the variance.
Kirsten explained that there was already an existing deck already placed in that location. They were proposing to replace it with one that encroached the same distance into the setback. They were going to add additional width to it, but the length from the house toward the property line would remain the same so the new deck would not encroach any more into the setback. She said they wanted to bring the deck up to code and noted particularly that the current deck did not have any balusters on its railings.
Paige had little to add other than she and her husband wanted to improve the deck and bring it up to code. She said the lack of balusters was a big concern for them because they have a 9-month-old son and they wanted to make sure he could stay safely on the deck. They also wanted the structure to be safe for anyone in the future who owned the house as well.
Board Chairman Paul McCann started out with a clarifying question. The action item read “The applicant proposes to build an attached deck to the rear of the property that would be twelve (12) feet from the rear property line. Section 23-96(g)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback.”
He thought he had read in the materials that the house had a legal non-conforming rear yard setback and that the house was approximately 20 feet from the property line. He didn’t understand how they could build a deck that went 12 feet out from the house but were asking for a variance to build 12 feet from the rear property line.
After some brief discussion, they determined that the variance would actually need to be for 8 feet from the rear property line.
[Side note, not caught was the fact that the agenda item actually listed the wrong section of code. Section 23-96 is the section pertaining to R-3 Multifamily Districts, but this property was actually zoned R-1B Single-Family District. The 25-foot setback requirement was the same regardless, and the actual variance that was granted did not reference the city code section by name/number, so the fact that it was listed incorrectly wouldn’t seem to be an issue.]
Kirsten explained that she had used GIS approximations, and Chairman McCann wanted to make sure that they had actually been out to the site and measured with a tape measure at the site.
Kirsten answered that the salesman had been to the site and physically measured the deck, then drew up a plan that projected the same length out from the house as the current deck. The sales man didn’t measure from the deck to the property line because they did not have a survey.
Chairman McCann explained that the difficulty the board had was that they had to approve how far off the property line they could build. If they approved 12 feet off the property line as was being requested, then they wouldn’t be able to build what they wanted to. It sounded like they were going to need to build within 8 feet of the property line, but if they did exact measurements and found out their plan would actually place the deck within 7 ½ feet of the property line then they would have to make adjustments because if they got a variance for 8 feet, it would only be for 8 feet.
The board members had no further questions, so Chairman McCann asked for a motion. Board member Kelly Sperl made a motion to approve a variance to allow them to build an attached deck 8 feet from the rear property line. He was seconded by board member Scott Engstrom.
There was no further discussion and the board voted 4-0 to approve the request.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=964834&GUID=B0DF5D19-2CD7-4D4E-B12C-78CDAAE54E17
Be the first to reply