The Board of Zoning Appeals is meeting 05/16/2022 at 7PM. They will be taking up 3 variance requests.
The first request is from a homeowner who wants to build an attached deck to the rear of their property which would be 12 feet from the rear property line. City code requires it to be at least 25’ back from the property line.
The house currently has a deck that was built (by a previous owner) years ago without a permit. Additionally, the house is approximately 20 feet from the rear property line, so the owner wouldn’t be allowed to build anything within the 25-foot rear yard setback.
Per the memo from staff, “The property is unique because of the legal nonconforming rear yard. Because of this, the owner is not able to build a deck, like other similar properties in the area.”
[So, it sounds to me like the question will come down to whether or not it is a hardship for a homeowner to not be able to build a deck on their property. Also, if they aren’t granted the variance, it will demonstrate the foresight of the previous owner in just going ahead and doing the project without seeking a permit or a variance.]
The second request is from the owner of a property that is zoned as R2 residential who wants to use the property for light manufacturing work even though light manufacturing is not a permitted use in R2 zoned properties.
Per the paperwork submitted by the applicant the lot, “does not and has never had a residential structure of the lot, it only has a garage-like building.”
Staff analysis points out that “the site currently does not provide off-street parking for an industrial use,” and that the applicant has not requested a variance for that requirement. Additionally, the staff memo indicates that “the zoning ordinance specifies standards for review by the Board of Zoning Appeals [and] states that the applicants for use variances must demonstrate that the there [sic] is no reasonable use of the property in the absence of a variance.”
Staff believes that building a single-family home would be a reasonable use for the property and “The Applicant has not met the review criteria for a use variance hardship.”
[It sounds like this variance request will be a tough case to make.]
The final variance request is from Mill City Public House to provide only 13 off street parking spaces even though city code would require a restaurant with a 99-person capacity to provide 33 spaces.
Per the applicant’s submittal the lot does not comply with current development standards and is over 4,000 square feet below current size requirements for a lot of their type. “Off-street parking requirements that were created for an area of 14,000 square or more would place an undue burden on our 9,8000 square foot lot, and the standard cannot be applied in this case. The lot is simply too small to provide any reasonable use in compliance with the current parking standards. As the lot was developed before the currening [sic] zoning standards were put into effect, special consideration is warranted.”
The staff analysis seems to confirm the applicant’s position and the staff memo concludes, “This is a nonconforming lot of record. The small size of the lot creates a unique condition and the owner is not able to add additional parking spaces. Because of the fact that the lot is a legal nonconforming lot of records, the applicant meets the review requirements because of the uniquely small size of the lot.”
[I’m impressed with the Mill City Public House application. When applicants are asked to describe the hardship, they’re supposed to point to some sort of abnormality in the physical nature of the lot that necessitates the variance. Not uncommonly, however, applicants answer that question with some sort of variation of “My hardship is that I won’t be able to do my project,” or “It’s too expensive to adhere to code.” You can see that in the previous two variance request submitted for this meeting.
Rusty Leary is the co-owner and general manager of Mill City Public House. He’s attended every committee and Council meeting in which aspects of his business have been considered and/or voted on, and he put together a stand-out variance application in which he articulated an actual hardship related to a physical aspect of the property.
The Board of Zoning Appeals tends to be very deliberate and thorough in considering requests, and discussions sometimes go on quite a bit longer than I expect. In this case, it’s hard for me to look at the application and the staff report and see what would require a long discussion.]
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=964834&GUID=B0DF5D19-2CD7-4D4E-B12C-78CDAAE54E17
Be the first to reply