The Board of Zoning Appeals met 12/16/2024. Two of the items they took up were variance requests pertaining to a driveway extension on Ballard Road near Memorial Park.
It sounded like the neighborhood is experiencing some kind of issue related to property lines. This has resulted in neighbors scrutinizing each other’s properties and a number of complaints being made to the city’s inspections department including not only this property but also one a couple lots over whose driveway extension variance request was recently voted on and denied by the Common Council. It is also possible that the property owner who requested the variances that were deliberated on by the Board of Zoning Appeals on 12/16/2024 will be lodging her own complaints against one of her neighbors, so more Ballard Road variance requests may be forthcoming.
The property before the board on 12/16/2024 contains a two-car garage that attaches to the house via a breezeway. In 2019, Sandra, the property owner, hired a contractor to pour a slab of concrete in front of the breezeway. Per Sandra, this contractor told her that he had taken out all of the necessarily permits. He then dug up her front yard then did not complete the work. They ended up hiring someone else to complete the work. It sounded like that second contractor relied on the homeowner’s belief that permits had been pulled.
Pouring concrete in front of the breezeway was considered by city staff to be an extension of the existing driveway. The Municipal Code’s Zoning Ordinance limits driveway extensions into the front yard to only four feet, but the new pavement extended 10 feet into the front yard. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance requires driveway extensions to taper as they approach the sidewalk to prevent people from driving over the terrace grass. The driveway extension did not taper, and the property owner indicated that the non-tapered portion of the driveway was needed so that her husband could park his semi there.
The Board of Zoning Appeals ultimately denied both variance requests, but they did brainstorm ways in which the owner might be able to keep the bulk of the concrete that had been poured.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
Joseph, one of Sandra’s next-door neighbors attended the meeting and spoke in support of her request. Additionally, he was upset at what he viewed as capricious and arbitrary decisions by the city’s Inspections Department.
There had been some sort of property line issue between his property and Sandra’s such that it turned out that part of Sandra’s driveway was actually on Joseph’s property. Because part of the driveway was on his property, the city had sent him multiple letters ordering him to remove the pavement. He eventually entered into an agreement with Sandra to sell her the part of his property on which the driveway had encroached. During this process he had been in communication with the Inspections Department and it was his understanding that by selling Sandra this slice of his land that the city would allow her to keep her driveway and give her the variance she needed.
Additionally, one of his other neighbors had a shed that was 11’x10’ which made it 110 square feet in size. Sec. 4-141 of the Municipal Code requires all accessory structures over 100 square feet to have a concrete slab as a foundation. Despite this rule, Mr. Johnson said that when the Inspections Department was told about this shed, they declined to enforce the code in this situation. He felt it was arbitrary and capricious that the Inspections Department would overlook the letter of the law for one property but then enforce it strictly against his neighbor Sandra.
He believed that the concrete Sandra had poured in front of her house was an aesthetic improvement over how the property had previously looked and he was in favor of the driveway extension remaining as it was.
As far as public comment went, Joseph was the only person who was willing to speak openly; however, an unsigned note had been anonymously dropped off at the Inspections Department which read, “In regards to the proposal of retaining the existing driveway located at 3115 North Ballard Road, we feel because it was done to their liking which they did not have a permit to do so in the first place, it goes against the zoning ordinance which should apply to all residences, and it should be taken out to conform with the limits of the four feet not 10.”
By Sandra’s account, she had been taken advantage of by an unscrupulous contractor. She had ended up filing a police report against him, but the contract had moved out of state, and she had been told by a lawyer that there was no way she was going to be able to get her money back. She had also had to pay thousands of dollars dealing with the property line issue. Now, someone who did not even live in her neighborhood had filed a complaint against her with the Inspections Department about her driveway extension.
The Board’s main issue in granting a variance was that there did not seem to be a physical hardship associated with the property. There were no topographical oddities with the lot such as being oddly shaped or abnormally small. There were people with mobility issues who needed to access the house and who possibly benefited to some degree , but the entrance from the breezeway into the house was not a handicap accessible entrance.
Additionally, the board’s understanding was that the Municipal Code’s restrictions on extending driveways into the front yard were specifically put in place to maintain some aesthetic standards by preventing front yard clutter and keeping people from parking in the front yard. Sandra’s family had been parking in that space. There were multiple residents in the home who all had cars and the extra space was beneficial. Sandra told the board, “We were never told we could not park on it. So how would we have known not to park on it? How would we know if we were in violation of code if we were told by our contractors that everything was okay from the city? As a new homeowner—I mean, we bought the home at a very young age. We don’t know all the legality and stuff there is to become a homeowner. We just trust in a contractor that—I mean, we had it done thousands of dollars. So that’s my issue. I was never told not to park on it. If I’m told not to park on it, okay, I’ll put a no parking sign there. Nobody will park on it. But I was never told not to park on it until there was a complaint made.”
There was also some discussion about whether the breezeway was part of the house or part of the garage. Sandra’s perspective was that it was part of the garage, and she noted that it was non-livable space. This perspective was supported at least to some degree by Alderperson Chris Croatt (District 14), the alderperson of the district where the house was located, who attended the committee and mentioned that the garage had once been an unattached garage that at some point had been connected to the house but “If you go into the breezeway […] the exterior of the house is still there.” [My understanding is that, if the breezeway was part of the garage, then the part of the driveway that was in front of it would no longer be considered an extension and it would conform to code as is without the need for a variance.]
Sandra also briefly mentioned the possibility of installing a garage door on the breezeway and wondered if that would make it be considered a garage rather than part of the house. This suggestion did not generate any sort of response, yes or no, from the board or the Inspections Department staff members who were at the meeting.
The position of Paul McCann, the Chairperson of the Board of Zoning Appeals, was that under the rules of the Municipal Code, the breezeway was considered part of the house.
Also weighing against the granting of a variance was the fact that the Common Council had recently discussed and voted against a similar variance request for a property just a couple lots away. Chairperson McCann noted that “gives you an indication of what the City Council’s opinion is of front yard driveway extensions that are non-compliant, and that’s who we work for.”
The board members raised the possibility of Sandra being able to cut out a much smaller portion of the extension, maintaining a four-foot extension as allowed under City Code, cutting out a part of the section that was beyond that four feet, and then keeping the rest as a sidewalk to the breezeway door which would also be allowed by City Code.
In the end, the Board ended up voting 3-1 against granting the variance to allow the driveway extension. Kelly Sperl was the one member who was in favor of approving it, saying, “I mean, Ballard Road is one of these roads in the city (and we’ve talked about this in a couple other variances over time here) that, you know, when things evolve, roads get widened, things—you know, traffic counts and things get excessive. I think there’s an honest mistake here. But I think the real hardship is the traffic count and the business, if you will, of Ballard Road, there’s a safety factor there, and I think that creates, in my mind, a hardship. Um, the fact that we have a neighbor to the south that’s very supporting of this, the alderman is here to speak on behalf of it, I think, you know, if there’s, if there’s a way we can—I mean, we’re really looking at two feet here as a variance for that, because the sidewalk is allowed there. And I mean, short of cutting two feet out, is that really something that needs to be done to make this into a better scenario?”
The board also voted against granting a variance to allow the ends of the driveway extension to not have to taper as they neared the sidewalk; however, there was a possibility that the property owner would be able to get a curb cut to widen her driveway apron, thus negating the need for tapering the driveway extension.
My impression was that Sandra took things as well as could be expected but she was not happy about the result even though she conducted herself appropriately and respectfully. She indicated that there were some lot line issues with the property on the other side of her from Joseph. “Their fence was removed and they left the concrete on our property. They also have black top that is on our property that, I mean, if I have to remove my concrete, I will be asking them to remove their black top as well and the concrete that is on my property. I’m not sure how far a garage has to be from a lot line, but if it’s less than a foot, they might have to move that as well.” Beyond that, she did not feel those neighbors had been very friendly people during the time she had lived next to them.
During the discussion Chairperson McCann mentioned, “I think if you move everyone’s lot line, two feet one direction or the other, it can cause all kinds of what used to be friendly people into non-friendly people.”
This seemed to be the case because when Sandra’s variance was denied one of her first questions was, “What is my next step to go against the neighbors on the north to move their garage over and their black top?”
She was told that she could talk to the Inspections Department and they could walk her through the process of filing a complaint.
[Unfortunately, Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen was out of town and appeared remotely for this meeting. I think it would have been beneficial if he had been there in person and could, perhaps, have addressed some of the issues that were raised. I’m curious if Joseph’s assertion that the Inspection’s Department allowed a 110 square foot accessory building to stay in place without a concrete slab was an accurate representation of what happened.
I also would have liked to hear Supervisor Craanen’s side of the overall interactions he had with Joseph. Joseph’s understanding was that he had an agreement with the city that by selling some of his land to Sandra she would be able to maintain her driveway as is. Clearly that wasn’t the case, and it seems like there was a communication issue of some sort. I’m curious if the issue was (a) a comprehension issue on Joseph’s part, (b) a lack of clear communication on the part of Inspections Supervisor Craanen, or (c) a combination of the two. This is not the first time a resident has come away from an interaction with the Inspections Department with an understanding of what was said that is markedly different than the Inspections Department’s understanding, and I think it would be beneficial to try to identify the reasons behind these misunderstandings so that hopefully similar misunderstandings can be prevented in the future.
I’m also curious if, per Sandra’s suggestion, it would be possible to turn the breezeway into a part of the garage by installing a garage door on it.
Finally, Chairperson McCann seemed very certain that the Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance categorized the breezeway as part of the dwelling. I would have liked there to have been more discussion about that had to have had him or the city staff members specific what part of the Code was being referenced.
The Zoning Ordinance defines “dwelling” as “a building or part of a building containing living, sleeping, housekeeping accommodations, and sanitary facilities for occupancy by one (1) or more families.”
It defines “garage” as “a detached or attached accessory building or a portion of the principal building, which is designed primarily for storage and/or parking of passenger vehicles, trailers, recreational vehicles, and trucks of a rated capacity not in excess of ten thousand (10,000) pounds gross weight.”
To me, when viewed from the street the breezeway looks like an extension of the garage, not part of the house proper, and the Google Earth image suggests it’s being used for storage like one would use a garage. Per Sandra, it is not a livable space, by which I presume she means it does not contain living, sleeping, housekeeping accommodations, and sanitary facilities. The fact that Alderperson Croatt attested that it is separated from the principal dwelling by the house’s exterior wall would further indicate to me that it is part of the garage not the dwelling.
Beyond all of that, I think it’s around time for the Common Council to rethink the code surrounding driveways and driveway extensions. It’s been mentioned several times in various committee, board, and Council discussions that the rule about driveway extensions only going 4 feet into the front yard is about aesthetics, not more practical concerns. Is aesthetics an appropriate reason for the Common Council to limit what property owners do with their own property? In this case, I’m not sure it is. Additionally, times have changed and the living arrangements and transportation needs for families now seem to be different than they were when the rule regarding front yard driveway extensions were first put into place. The increased parking needs of Appleton residents were the driving force behind the resolution Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) submitted that would have allowed on-street overnight parking in the city. Households tend to have more cars now as a result of multi-generational living arrangements and everybody in the household having jobs. Although the resolution in question was voted down, the issues that prompted Alderperson Siebers to bring the resolution forward still exist and don’t seem to be going away on their own. One solution might be to reconsider the rules regarding driveway extensions and where they can be placed on a privately owned property.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1249005&GUID=53C6CDC2-7506-48F5-9290-1E6C58A13900
Be the first to reply