The Municipal Services Committee met 07/25/2022. One of the items they took up was a variance request from a property owner to allow their driveway to be widened more than four feet into their front yard. Apparently, the area was already paved without a permit and was paved in a way that contravened city code.
The property owner himself did not speak, and it wasn’t clear to me whether he was in attendance or not. However, the contractor who had done the paving appeared.
The contractor explained that he was a small business owner and hadn’t been aware of the city code. The pavement had not been intended to be parked on and was supposed to be used for a mural. They poured the driveway and front part in two different sections, and cars were not supposed to be parked on top of it for 7 days, so there was a car parked on the part that extended into the front yard but that was temporary. The contractor said that the owner was willing to put in writing that he would not park on it and that he was going to use it as a mural for music.
After the contractor spoke, Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen gave a little more background on the situation. Section 19-91(c) of the city code provided a limited ability for people to pave their front yards. A driveway was defined as the apron up to the garage or rear parking area. If a property owner wanted to widen that, they could extend it by 4 feet into the front yard or by 12 feet into the side yard toward the neighboring property.
People who wanted to widen their driveway were required to get a permit, which was something many people did. It was common for property owners to flair out the driveway after the apron so that they would have more room to park their cars.
Inspections Supervisor Craanen believed that the ordinance was originally passed to prevent people from paving their entire front yard because the city did not want front yards to look like parking lots.
In this particular case, he received a complaint so he went out and checked on it. The contractor was just finishing up and while discussing it with him it turned out that the contractor was unaware that he needed a permit or that he could only go four feet into the front yard. He noted that the pavement went across most of the front yard.
Inspections Supervisor Craanen said that, after speaking with the contractor, he did have a possible solution. “I’m recommending that he take a permit out, allowing them to go four feet into the front yard like the ordinance allows, but then cut some out.” Basically, they could go four feet into the front yard, and have some as a walkway leading to the front door, but then cut the part in the middle out.
That was what he was recommending happen, but he acknowledged that the committee had the absolute right to give the variance and allow what happened to remain permanently.
A motion had previously been made to deny the variance, so Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) asked the City Attorney if they needed to deny the variance or if they should table the item if they wanted to move forward with Inspection Supervisor Craanen’s suggestion.
City Attorney Christopher Behrens answered that if they voted it down now then what they had done would not be permitted. Provided the suggested action was acceptable to the property owner, Attorney Behrens’ recommendation was that the committee hold the item to allow time for the correction to be made (i.e., for a section of the concrete to be removed and for a permit to be applied for the remainder of the work), then they could take the item up again after the corrections were made. If the correction wasn’t made within that time, then they could take whatever action they deemed necessary be that either approving or denying the variance request.
Alderperson Siebers asked either the property owner or the contractor what he thought about that and was told that action was fine.
The contractor said that he’d rather not take the entire section out if he didn’t need to so the less he needed to take out the better. He acknowledged that a lesson had been learned on his part and seemed apologetic he had made this mistake.
Alderperson Siebers told him he could work with Inspections Supervisor Craanen on the issue and expressed hole that they had a solution.
The committee proceeded to vote 5-0 to hold the item for two weeks until the next Municipal Services Committee meeting.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=982991&GUID=9FFFD603-3733-4B15-A385-D5C6961C1E74
Be the first to reply