The Common Council met 10/02/2024. One of the items on the agenda was a request from a Ballard Road homeowner for a variance that would allow him to keep a concrete slab that was installed for use as a turnaround for a car and also appeared to be used as a parking spot.
This variance was recommended for denial by the Municipal Services Committee by a vote of 3-1, and that denial was then upheld by the Common Council by a vote of 12-2 with Alderpersons Vered Meltzer (District 2) and Alex Schultz (District 9) casting the two votes in favor of the homeowner.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
The variance was for a 15’x15’ concrete slab that extended into the front yard and that was ostensibly used as a turnaround for cars wanting to pull forward into Ballard Road rather than backing onto Ballard. If the slab had only been 12’x12’ and placed on the other side of the driveway so that it extended into the side yard, it would have been compliant with the Municipal Code. However, because it went into the front yard, it was only allowed to be 4 feet wide by code. The contractor who poured the slab had claimed he hadn’t known that a permit was needed. If he had applied for a permit, city staff would have been able to catch this issue before the slab was poured.
The homeowner had claimed that the slab was only used as a turnaround and not as a parking spot; however, the aerial image from Google of the property seemed to show a car parked on the slab.
The Council did not spend much time discussing this item. Alderperson Chris Croatt (District 14) spoke briefly. He said that the property was in his district. His understanding was that the contractor who poured the slab had agreed to remove it but the property owner had already invested $2,500 to install the slab and would like to retain it if possible. “I will note that I was told that it was not to be utilized as a parking spot. It was a turnaround. However, I’ve seen a vehicle there on numerous occasions when I drive by. So, a little bit disappointed in that in that fact, because I understand the reasoning for using it as a turnaround. Ballard is a busy road. Traffic travels by their house at 35, 40, even higher speeds, and it can be pretty heavy at times. So, I can definitely see the need to or want to not back out onto Ballard and versus turning around and pulling out straight. But again, the vote here will be to tear out about $2,500 of concrete if you don’t approve their variance.”
The Council went on to vote 12-2 to deny the variance request with Alderperson Croatt voting with those in favor of denying it and Alderpersons Meltzer and Schultz voting against the denial.
[City staff has just brought forward some proposals that would move the section of the Municipal Code pertaining to driveways from Chapter 19 to Chapter 23. If approved, this would result in the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing variance requests for these items, rather than the Municipal Services Committee and the Council. I think this would be a positive change because it would allow a neutral third party to review such requests rather than the entity who established the code to begin with.
I also think that the Council seems oddly willing to provide grace in matters of licensure, for example bending over backwards to renew an alcohol license for an establishment that had been closed for over a year and whose owner had demonstrated no effort to get her business back up and running until after the deadline to do so had passed and multiple warnings had gone unheeded. The Safety and Licensing Committee also recently voted 3-1 to recommend the renewal of the bartender license for an applicant with 3 OWI convictions and 1 felony conviction for operating with a prohibited blood alcohol content level. This item has, however, been referred back to the committee for further discussion, so a final decision has not been made.
The amount of grace and favor that the Council shows toward irresponsible license holders makes it seem much more unfair when they then choose to uphold the letter of the law against homeowners who have technically violated the municipal code but who are not endangering anyone or causing any sort of real harm. So, I think moving variance decisions about driveways away from the Common Council and into the hands of the Board of Zoning Appeals will make the decisions about those variance requests appear to be more fair even in situations when the variances are not granted.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1213517&GUID=81E74286-30D8-42B6-B190-79482A705CD5
Be the first to reply