The Municipal Services Committee met 08/12/2024. One of the items they took up was a variance request from a property owner on N Ballard Road to allow him to maintain a 15’x15’ concrete slab that jutted off his driveway into his front yard that he and his wife use as a “turnaround.
Under the Municipal Code, this slab was classified as a driveway extension but the code allowed driveway extensions to extend no more than 4 feet into a property’s front yard.
The committee ended up voting 4-0 to deny the variance request.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
Michael, the property owner, appeared before the committee and told them that his wife had once been t-boned and pushed up against a telephone pole in a serious accident that had left her hospitalized and resulted in a neck injury that, to this day, made it bothersome for her to turn her head for anything length of time. They installed the concrete slab to be used as a turnaround so that they could increase safety by having a better view of Ballard Road when they pulled onto it.
He said that up and down Ballard Road and throughout the City of Appleton there was a lot of parking and lots that were paved right up to the sidewalk. He did not see much difference between that and the slab that they had which he noted they did not even park on.
They had hired a contractor to pour the slab which had cost a lot of money, and he was hoping that they would be able to get a variance so they could keep the turnaround.
Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen said that no permit had been pulled for the work and when the contractor called and spoke with him the contractor claimed he hadn’t known that a permit was needed.
Mr. Craanen was asked why the city had a rule that restricted driveway extensions in the front yards of properties. He said that at the time the ordinance was passed there had been a lot of discussion about what the community standard should be. The Council at the time had determined that 4 feet would provide enough room to park a car on that side of a driveway. There was also the option to extend the driveway by 12 feet toward the side yard. They wanted to balance the parking needs to families while preventing homeowners from being able to pave their entire front yard.
There was discussion about the different pavement standards for properties that were zoned differently. Single-family residential lots had different limits on the allowable percentage of impervious surface as compared to commercially zoned properties which were allowed to have much more of their surfaces paved. This difference in percentage of paved surface was reflected in the water utility rates paid by residential properties as compared to commercial properties. The utility system’s rate calculations were based on the assumption that residential properties (which have less pavement) were sending less run-off into the system than commercial properties (which have more pavement).
Under the Municipal Code, the homeowner had the option to have a 4-foot driveway extension on the front yard side of the driveway. Otherwise, he could install an extension up to 12-feet on the side yard side of the driveway. In fact, one of his next door neighbors had turnaround similar to the one he had, but in that case, it was on the side yard side of the driveway.
Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) said, “I think upholding the denial for this variance is the right thing to do. Personally, if I had hired a contractor and they didn’t know the zoning codes and they went forward with this, I’d be very angry at them. I don’t think as homeowners we’re going to know every single building code and zoning code that applies to anything we may be considering for our homes, but I would hope that the people that we hire to do that work do their homework and understand those things.”
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) said, “I share my colleague’s sympathies for the expense and the situation. I’m very familiar with that intersection. My dentist is across the street, I think. But the—and also the knowledge that the contractor should have been aware that we require a permit for this kind of activity. I hope that something can be worked out as a compromise, but I think that in this situation, we have to enforce the code.”
The committee voted 4-0 to deny the variance.
[It was interesting to see which way this vote went in light of the vote on the Corner Pub license issue that was voted on only two days later. In this case, the man’s wife had lingering physical issues related to an injury and used this turnaround as way to accommodate for her physical issues and more safely pull out onto a busy road. Beyond that, granting the extension would not have cost other residents of the city any noticeable amount of money. The variance, however, was denied in favor of maintaining the zoning code ordinance.
In the case of the Corner Pub’s license, the Safety and Licensing Committee voted to grant the owner a license even though her business had not been open for a year, the deadline was 2 ½ past, and she had not even made any attempts to reopen until the deadline to do so had come and gone. They also did this knowing that this decision to grant her the license would cost another business owner in the city $10,000. But they granted her a license because they felt sorry for her health issues.
If these two cases are any indication, it would seem that the alderpersons of this city view some health issues as worthy of more special consideration than others.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1224657&GUID=D2FD52F7-CAD8-49E3-9C84-E05E729AB3C5
4 thoughts on “Municipal Services Committee Votes Unanimously To Deny Ballard Road Homeowner’s Variance Request For Driveway Extension”