[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6280034,"mediaKeyId","2617579-754ca2607c44011986caa0b3266fe386","parentId",2617579,"title","Board of Appeals finds Design Review Board record adequate on Capitol Drive redevelopment; remand issue resolved","audioSeconds",4553,"startMs",5645000,"endMs",10198000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2617579-754ca2607c44011986caa0b3266fe386&start=5645&end=10198","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2617579-754ca2607c44011986caa0b3266fe386/thumbnail_5645000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6280034/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Board-of-Appeals-finds-Design-Review-Board-record-adequate-on-Capitol-Drive-redevelopment-remand-issue-resolved","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280034-ccafad9af2033a310e6666fe4871b61f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191451&Signature=eZp87HNe5eYcInT4QS9aJvlbbMlHlFhvlUZTdg2SxnUU4uOh4Grg9OaO57jvXFhDcwbzvMP0o61~-lkts8A4ZmqwXITsQAg1TOeq~7-Es8KKyDzqHKVknuhCUaYnXS~NrOaKiVP6a3OcvpQk4vl3Sa3yl7zH9LS7So3Sr2HV~vKRMOjd5ut3UcDoVm-xXgp9us43uQHJeOBEJT0YTQLXyt9QALLZXvJtr-oWsVJGwpGjR-~bmbAA7qIfcPWbq3IR1suD5oZkGF4HbwKXRHtWFTh12ROnQ9iDbLKHFDbvgZod7PZC9bUSBHdv-1FrMV635h9doZ6IzBShClkuM-HktQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Village of Shorewood, WI","date","2025-03-12T13:50:09Z","article","The Village of Shorewood Board of Appeals voted to find the record generated by the Design Review Board on December 19, 2024, adequate to support the DRB’s finding that the multi-family redevelopment at 2418–2428 East Capitol Drive would not cause substantial depreciation to the applicant’s property or neighboring properties.

The item traces to a 2022 DRB approval of the project’s design elements that neighbors challenged to the Board of Appeals, then to circuit court. The court remanded the matter for a narrower showing: whether the DRB’s consideration and record adequately addressed the ordinance requirement that the DRB find the proposal would not contribute to “substantial depreciation” of neighboring properties.

Village counsel and the developer’s counsel asked the board to accept the DRB’s supplemental record from December 19, 2024, which included an audio-recorded discussion by DRB members that the court said was missing from the original file. Attorney Joe Worth, who represented the village in circuit court, told the Board of Appeals that the DRB members had reviewed the March 2022 materials, discussed the design elements and “closed discussion to allow the meeting minutes to reflect that we, as a design review board, do not anticipate substantial depreciation of this building and neighboring buildings.”

Attorney McCurdy Sincotta, representing the East Capitol Neighbors Association, argued the DRB should have held a supplemental hearing that would allow parties to introduce new factual evidence about property-value impacts rather than rely on board members’ recollection. Sincotta cited case law preventing a governmental decisionmaker from supplementing the record with new evidence on remand and urged the Board of Appeals to remand for a fresh evidentiary hearing.

After considering both sides and reviewing the DRB meeting video and related materials, the Board of Appeals voted that the DRB’s December 19 record satisfied the circuit court’s directive and was adequate for the court’s review. The board’s motion passed with the recorded votes in the transcript: Wendy Smith, Dan/John Tuenhoff, Scott Waligora and Kevin Matthews voted to accept the record; Steven Isaacson recorded an abstention.

The decision returns the matter to circuit court for final review; the court will decide whether the remand has been satisfied. The board’s action does not change the current physical status of the development; it determines only whether the DRB’s record suffices under the court’s remand order.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Appeals - March 11, 205","oneSentenceSummary","After a circuit-court remand, the Shorewood Board of Appeals reviewed the Design Review Board's December 19, 2024 record and found it adequate to support the DRB's conclusion that the new multi-family project at 2418–2428 East Capitol Drive would not cause substantial depreciation to neighboring properties.","taxTitle","Shorewood, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin","taxId",69871,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6280039,"Board approves rear-setback variance but denies side-setback request at 4144 North Morris Boulevard",1924,3720000,5644000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2617579-754ca2607c44011986caa0b3266fe386&start=3720&end=5644","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2617579-754ca2607c44011986caa0b3266fe386/thumbnail_3720000.jpg","/articles/6280039/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Board-approves-rear-setback-variance-but-denies-side-setback-request-at-4144-North-Morris-Boulevard","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280039-cf84bd3f7a4eeceeb475eaef03c9835f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191452&Signature=WDdAhXNYMw8XyMoMyLLH4lwe9A363m1QyTFX2mjSIbh7k65zh7VCd36x70kyEQ~52dtmOCNMWHUgeZKU9RAfXlj3ZLvhAFv-~ljCJBLQyyiSQYy2DiD1Mb7UvcMeNT40X8n7f3y26vwUGUSMj2oR~EiwTSBlOMuTjsL0VvWMLc6UYYFHIk61dF6WKDE-XUn22SJD1UPg2enTzfVza8pWBV4umBErjwpmx7Tfvovce~oEt7QGWEADJUMURvhS0wZOxBaAEzB6RRO5n6SOGZZmRoaagTnT2SdojtCXHTwiBa0JXq0660ZzuAKixrKeCejdg4NhYVvb7n5jjuxuGsqyuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Village of Shorewood Board of Appeals granted a limited variance to allow a new detached two-car garage to encroach 1 foot into the rear yard setback at 4144 North Morris Boulevard, finding exceptional circumstances, but voted to deny a separate request to encroach into the side-yard setback after hearing neighbor objections.

Inspector Justin Burris told the board the property owner is seeking a detached garage that would reduce the required 3-foot rear and side setbacks by 1 foot, making both 2-foot setbacks for the new structure. Burris said the lot, building permit application and plans were reviewed and that the requested encroachments were the only nonconforming elements in an otherwise compliant packet.

Owner Griffith Watson testified the existing single-car garage and a failing railroad-tie retaining wall behind the house prompted the design. \"We're proposing to replace that retaining wall with the garage,\" Watson said. He explained the garage foundation would be built of concrete block to act as a retaining wall, improve drainage with drain tile, and allow two cars to be parked inside; the owner said the existing garage currently accommodates only one car.

Neighbor James Maloney, whose property abuts the south side where the requested side setback encroachment would occur, objected to the side-yard portion of the request. Maloney said shifting the garage closer by one foot, plus eaves and gutter overhang, would leave “a foot or less” between garage and his fence, impede fence maintenance and increase runoff into his yard during heavy rain events. He said he had not been able to discuss compromises with the owner prior to the hearing.

Board members debated options including a partial variance and conditions addressing gutters and downspouts. The board ultimately voted to grant the rear-yard variance (unanimous) and to deny the side-yard variance (unanimous nay votes recorded). The motion language and votes are recorded in the meeting minutes; the owner said he would coordinate with the neighbor on gutters and drain-tile installations.

The board noted that, if a garage were permitted at compliant setbacks, the owner would likely need to retain a separate retaining wall; the approved rear-yard variance allows the owner to use the new garage foundation to stabilize the grade behind the property.","The Board of Appeals granted a variance allowing a new garage to encroach 1 foot into the rear yard setback at 4144 North Morris Boulevard (from 3 feet to 2 feet), but denied the companion request to encroach into the side-yard setback after neighbor concerns about proximity, maintenance access and stormwater.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6280044,"Board allows 6-foot driveway gate at 3926 North Lake Drive, citing safety and precedent",2359,1337000,3696000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2617579-754ca2607c44011986caa0b3266fe386&start=1337&end=3696","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2617579-754ca2607c44011986caa0b3266fe386/thumbnail_1337000.jpg","/articles/6280044/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Board-allows-6-foot-driveway-gate-at-3926-North-Lake-Drive-citing-safety-and-precedent","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280044-00df7394b519535ffaaf05d2ad6fddd9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191452&Signature=bom9EBQP1iDc-X23rLLWF7z71CTs8b8P89Ms8Nlj1Ap7sQsW9-A3D4uTl6fCwOam5ssVfFx-ACli08zsY8aJF4D2iG7i-fyj1ArEU3UutJXWl4~80tAHBni5RKTYkLQw9v6B-9Xd7kHC7~JRo53R3DqARNs2NAkxQZ~T4YdXemG1rkTlL5wP33tUnjX3J7Ln6U60QEtdplJ4RxOtraSJbsbzr-7bXjcs3W5dfRtqmKS5bJJBil9QnHZY-8W7TVtF~RJ1rmiSuHLXnB2qJatXzwcTwCA~5~Eg~0WbeQTlCcPjSHDSI6fOkG5P6dIQP13djdd7XYmjLiadE3MVTeMvxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Village of Shorewood Board of Appeals voted to grant a variance allowing a 6-foot ornamental driveway gate in the front-yard setback at 3926 North Lake Drive, reversing an earlier denial and citing changed circumstances and precedent from similar properties.

Counsel for property owners Eric and Ashley Higgins argued the request was warranted by intensified trespassing and traffic-safety issues on Lake Drive, plus recent bluff stabilization work that altered the rear access to the property. The applicants presented photos, Department of Transportation crash maps and daily traffic counts to show an increase in incidents along the corridor since 2020.

Attorney Debbie Tomczyk, representing the owners, summarized the application and said the gate’s central, ornamental section \"does extend up to 6 feet. But that's the only thing at issue.\" Tomczyk pointed to prior board approvals on nearby Lake Drive properties as precedent and said neighbors to the north and south had submitted letters of support.

Owner Eric Higgins testified the bluff restoration completed last summer made traversing from Lake Drive to Lake Michigan more treacherous and described a recent incident in which a speeding vehicle struck the family dog, requiring surgery. Higgins said trespassers recently required a police visit to remove people from the property.

Board members debated whether the safety claims were unique to this parcel or reflective of broader neighborhood conditions along Lake Drive. Some members cited precedent where higher fences or gates were allowed at other Lake Drive properties after police-incident testimony; others cautioned that granting multiple similar variances could effectively rewrite the ordinance for the corridor.

The motion to grant the variance passed after board discussion. Votes recorded in the meeting transcript show a majority in favor; the board instructed the clerk to issue written confirmation. The village’s permitting rules limit front-yard fences to 4 feet unless a variance is granted under village code 2-25-8(b)(2).","After debate and reference to prior decisions, the Board of Appeals granted a variance allowing a 6-foot ornamental driveway gate at 3926 North Lake Drive, citing intensified trespassing and traffic incidents and board precedent for similar properties.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6280048,"Board of Appeals grants variance for rear sunroom at 2312 East Lake Bluff Boulevard",1243,89000,1332000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2617579-754ca2607c44011986caa0b3266fe386&start=89&end=1332","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2617579-754ca2607c44011986caa0b3266fe386/thumbnail_89000.jpg","/articles/6280048/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Board-of-Appeals-grants-variance-for-rear-sunroom-at-2312-East-Lake-Bluff-Boulevard","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280048-c760c1cfc9d39bdfe8e874f04847c414/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191452&Signature=cHRE6tP4VC09WVd4NgIkUFDJUTaz2DADtq1TVLn~YrLslVw~Vgng~PpRGtZhxvTCtjM5BIMZIhHpw3CsExz26g9hpWdX3G27PevFNHpg~SNDfFyiZOMt--oeddy01A6hK53G37a6HjlD7UTljNsF8iU7ERyKrIyVEYQwrXW3HqV~EsSI1vg3Zgm3aEwk4cGzVvAqsU6e2z046qq9nl2lDSc1BOxkp80msY4kCqusdKWCg2Ly8zwairxBnA5upPl2k94PYzzudJFQq332oR5X2IIdxoeBEWMWrCggMG0fHekPCKa0sgeh5zCx7fOXKptFUbEPBkBAfGc2kDYcon9RpA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Village of Shorewood Board of Appeals voted to grant a variance of the village lot-coverage rules Monday to allow a rear sunroom addition at 2312 East Lake Bluff Boulevard that increases principal-structure coverage to 31.6%.

The board said the lot's irregular shape and an attached-but-not-internal-access garage created an exceptional circumstance that justified a limited departure from Section 5-35-19(E)(5) of the village code and would not cause substantial detriment to neighboring properties.

Justin Burris, lead building inspector, told the board the property is an interior lot in the R-5 single-family district and “the existing lot is nonconforming with respect to the minimum lot area. The R-5 District requires that lots are at least 6,000 square feet, and this lot is 5,247 square feet.” Burris said the applicant's proposed plans had been reviewed by the Design Review Board and the packet included a zoning review, plans and photos.

Architect Josh Eyre, sworn and speaking for the property owners, said the lot's nonrectilinear shape, including a 400-square-foot cut-out at a corner of the parcel, pushed calculated lot coverage to 31.6%. Eyre said, “if that 400 square foot was part of the property, we would be within the limit,” and that a smaller, compliant sunroom would be “too small” to be usable.

Board members discussed whether the lot's physical constraints were unique to this parcel, and Chair Wendy Smith noted the clerk's office had not received objections from neighboring property owners. After deliberation, the board approved the motion to grant the variance. John Tuenhoff abstained; Wendy Smith, Steven Isaacson, Scott Waligora and Kevin Matthews voted in favor.

The clerk will provide the applicants written confirmation of the board's decision and instructions for next steps in permitting.","The Village of Shorewood Board of Appeals granted a variance to allow a rear sunroom that increases principal-structure lot coverage from 30% to 31.6% at 2312 East Lake Bluff Boulevard, finding the lot's irregular shape created an exceptional circumstance and posed no substantial detriment to neighbors.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board of Appeals finds Design Review Board record adequate on Capitol Drive redevelopment; remand issue resolved

Board approves rear-setback variance but denies side-setback request at 4144 North Morris Boulevard

Board allows 6-foot driveway gate at 3926 North Lake Drive, citing safety and precedent

Board of Appeals grants variance for rear sunroom at 2312 East Lake Bluff Boulevard