The Municipal Services Committee met 09/23/2024. One of the items on the agenda was a variance request for a driveway extension on a Ballard Road residential property.
This item was initially recommended for denial by the Municipal Services Committee back in August. It was then referred back to the committee by Alderperson Chris Croatt (District 14). He had been unable to attend the 09/09/2024 committee meeting, so the item was held until this meeting. Unfortunately, he was unable to attend this meeting also.
The committee ended up voting 3-1 to deny the variance request a second time, with Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) casting the lone vote in favor of granting the variance.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
The driveway “extension” in question was actually a 15’x15’ concrete slab that extended into the front yard and that was ostensibly used as a turnaround for cars wanting to pull into Ballard Road. 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. It was explained at a previous committee meeting that 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 explained to the committee for the second time that the purpose of the slab was to help his wife and grandchildren safely pull into Ballard. Ballard is a busy road, and positioning the car on this turnaround allowed the driver to view the traffic better and see when everything was clear.
The property owner drew on his Christian faith to speak against the onerousness of the Municipal Code. “Jesus Christ Himself reprimanded the Pharisees because they were handed down to 10 commandments. And on to these 10 Commandments, they added all these laws, codes. So, Jesus reprimanded them for burdening the people with so many things that they could not possibly do. These codes—we have a lot of codes on laws that are attached to the law that people—I just think it’s a burden to the people.”
He said that the slab was not hurting anybody and indicated that someone had been calling in complaints about other residents in the neighborhood as well.
Alderperson Meltzer was inclined to approve the variance, noting that the contractor had been in the wrong to not apply for the proper permit, and explaining, “I also do see a hardship with the structure of the building on your property that I don’t see how else you would work around it. […] I think being on Ballard Road with the traffic the way that it is, is very different […] from more residential areas. And while […] I would not be inclined to support this in, you know, a regular street with slower traffic, I can definitely see how that positioning really is about safety.”
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) who was not a member of the committee opposed granting the variance. She thought that the reason for the rules in the Municipal Code that governed this issue was so to prevent people from turning their front yards into parking lots and to maintain a level of neatness within a city where other people lived. She thought that if there were a safety issue here that it should be addressed by an overall change to the city code not by a variance for this specific instance.
Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) understood the desire for the turnaround, but if the variance was granted the city would have no ability to come in and keep it from being used as a parking stall.
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) felt that the contractor who poured the slab was the one who had really caused the issue and noted that “city staff is here to work with people,” and if he had come and applied for a permit city staff would have been able to help him come up with a plan that conformed to Municipal Code.
During the discussion it was also briefly touched upon that the aerial view on Google Maps seems to belie the claim that the slab was not used as a parking spot. Per Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen’s memo, when contacted about the issue the homeowner “stated that this slab was not a parking space”. Additionally, during the 08/12/2024 committee meeting, the homeowner had said, “We don’t park there during the day. We just use it for a turn around.” However, the Google aerial view seems to show a car parked there during the day. One can infer the car is parked and not simply using the spot as a turnaround to pull into the street because the front of the car is facing the front yard, whereas if it were positioned in order to pull into the road it would be turned in the other direction.
There was also brief discussion what had happened when a somewhat similar variance request had come before the committee. In that situation, a homeowner on Packard Street had paved his front yard so that he could use it for parking. The variance request had not been approved and the slab had been removed. The hole that was left after the slab was removed had never been filled in with dirt.
The committee ended up voting 3-1 to deny the variance with Alderpersons William Siebers (District 1), Firkus, and Fenton voting in favor of the denial, and Alderperson Meltzer voted against it.
[Aesthetics seems like a bs-y reason to ban people from paving their front yards and parking their cars wherever they want to on their property. In a different day and age maintaining a community aesthetic standard made sense, but have you walked into a Walmart recently? We’re all badly dressed, overweight, ugly, horrible people. Why should we suddenly care about aesthetic standards in regards to this one specific area?
I do also have some sympathy for the homeowner in his position that the Municipal Code is onerous and burdensome to people that aren’t causing any harm. Four years ago, the Common Council voted to reduce fines for marijuana use because smoking marijuana wasn’t a big deal. It’s hard to see how paving your front yard or parking a car in it is any more detrimental to society than smoking a joint.
And, again, it was only a month ago that the Common Council voted 9-1 to renew the alcohol license for the owner of the Corner Pub even though that license had not been used for over a year, even though the owner had overlooked or disregarded the several notices she had received telling her that she needed to start using the license again, and even though granting that license to her cost another business owner $10,000 to get a reserve license because a regular license was no longer available. And yet, for some reason, that business owner was given grace and favor by the Common Council while this property owner has thus far been shown no grace or favor even though he behaved in a manner no more irresponsible than the Corner Pub’s owner (and one could argue was less irresponsible in that he relied on a professional who should have known to get a permit) and the granting of this variance would not cost an individual business owner in this city $10,000.
The Municipal Code may contain onerous and burdensome rules, but I think at least as burdensome as the rules themselves is the uneven enforcement of those rules and the arbitrary showing of grace to some but not to others.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1226866&GUID=354E065E-5186-42F1-AB9B-8C762FD2D2C0
Be the first to reply