[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6236367,"mediaKeyId","3365499-a6adf4dec03b234c8dcba2a51c68c9f4","parentId",3365499,"title","Zoning board denies shore-yard variance for new home after neighbors raise construction and setback concerns","audioSeconds",1629,"startMs",3439600,"endMs",5068890,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3365499-a6adf4dec03b234c8dcba2a51c68c9f4&start=3439&end=5068","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3365499-a6adf4dec03b234c8dcba2a51c68c9f4/thumbnail_3439600.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6236367/Monona/Dane-County/Wisconsin/Zoning-board-denies-shore-yard-variance-for-new-home-after-neighbors-raise-construction-and-setback-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6236367-a06a54adf071a6f085da69b8ecafc5e8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165438&Signature=b3lRwwJM0qlSL46X9XDgmaGTTVDYNVPR6MKH-bU7St~3sl0hbgFv47Pzkd4BIgDvSb0VN8JUsREnn9wnW6ONSD6TzGOOdtWpUy~nJWx9gs4kpugUZ5-2kY8aJr8fuUrps4jhpzRYpP7qTEGQp6yKCKL~Eggj8LjCMvV9TqPbmFdy~FPS8Qcr2Gd7AaelPR66wKUMtKMii5E~aVw97hhsW83dxL~imAY3uQkIaydZDB4jQnAVjm2zjhkgtITCL2IiUIEM2-OWAtKi1tF3xt9gz3kcI1rUweLNHG79DMYx11e6LIV8y4KqF985s08eX8cRrkF-nr8b62J7VwmJ1zeNLg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Monona, WI","date","2025-05-16T15:28:38Z","article","The City of Monona Zoning Board of Appeals denied a shore-yard setback variance requested by applicants Stella and David Patton (represented at the hearing by contractor Jill Lampi) for a proposed cantilevered screened porch and open deck at the rear of a newly constructed home on the property listed in the record as 5405 (case cited as C4245/Z4-2025).

Neighbors who spoke in public comment described repeated construction impacts and urged denial. One nearby homeowner, who identified himself in the hearing record as a property owner adjacent to the site, said construction crews had repeatedly accessed his driveway without permission, left rock on his driveway, and tracked heavy equipment across his yard. He told the board he had photographic evidence of the alleged trespassing and asked the city to confirm that the house was being built within its approved property lines. He also said the subject lot was created by combining two parcels and argued that a double lot leaves no demonstrated \"unique physical property limitation\" that would justify a variance.

Neighbor John Greenberg (speaking in opposition) urged the board to deny the variance and said, \"If they need more space, perhaps the home should not be built here.\" He also raised concerns about a sewer line running along the backyard that could require future maintenance and asked the board not to establish a precedent that would encourage future encroachment toward that infrastructure.

Doug, the city planner present at the hearing, explained that the items at issue were both the deck and the attached screen porch and that shore-yard setbacks in Monona are measured to the building wall (not to footing placement). Staff noted the approved plans had a scaled-back version of the deck and porch consistent with what was required for permit issuance; the builders asked for the larger configuration after plan approval, which triggered the variance request.

Board members repeatedly said they were unable to identify a hardship or unique physical limitation that would meet the variance standard. Several members noted that because this is new construction on a combined double lot, the owners and designers had the opportunity during design to avoid encroaching on the shore-yard setback. One commissioner said the encroachment appeared to be the product of design choices rather than unavoidable site conditions.

Concerns about building height and how roof overhangs and attic geometry affect the \"mean\" height calculation were also raised by neighbors during public comment, although the board limited its decision to the variance requested for the deck and porch footprint. Staff said roof overhangs may be allowed to encroach up to 2.5 feet for setback calculations and that the height calculation was measured to the highest point of the roof.

When the board took a motion on the variance for the screen porch and deck, a member moved to deny on grounds that the applicant had not demonstrated unnecessary hardship or a unique physical limitation; the motion carried. The board recorded the denial and neighbors were advised to work with building staff if they have documentation of alleged on-site trespass or other code violations.

The denial means the builders must either construct the deck and porch in the scaled-back form that was approved for permit issuance or return with a revised application and supporting evidence that would meet the ordinance's variance standards. Several board members suggested the affected neighbors and the builder should work with planning staff to reconcile outstanding questions about as-built locations and to submit corrected materials if necessary.

The hearing record includes sworn public comments from adjacent homeowners describing repeated construction access on private property, claims that the contractor deposited rock on a neighbor's driveway, and concerns about whether the constructed dimensions match the approved plans. Staff advised that those issues can be pursued as separate enforcement matters through the city's permitting and code-enforcement process.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Zoning Board of Appeals - May 15, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Monona Zoning Board denied a variance request for a new home's cantilevered deck and screened porch after neighbors reported construction encroachments, argued the lot was buildable as combined parcels, and said the proposal lacked a legally cognizable hardship.","taxTitle","Monona, Dane County, Wisconsin","taxId",70921,"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},6236372,"Monona zoning board limits variance for Brookhaven Circle sunroom to existing footprint",3353,65320,3418610,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3365499-a6adf4dec03b234c8dcba2a51c68c9f4&start=65&end=3418","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3365499-a6adf4dec03b234c8dcba2a51c68c9f4/thumbnail_65320.jpg","/articles/6236372/Monona/Dane-County/Wisconsin/Monona-zoning-board-limits-variance-for-Brookhaven-Circle-sunroom-to-existing-footprint","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6236372-bd663a48082b59eb842af278d871376f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165438&Signature=ekbRjgXnRECw6UGHNFd53UmeWx-TIpCHsXNA9s66AEVw0D~UbVbZuaKeYZb~~H7DhPy4BZViVrLG9uctpKeu1PptF5qkQw1Yvpof7rn~IfQlmagwBgxQi2GBWRnYxPwcakyu7z5vZMv7X46ASalUDX~zzp7X1~TCImMTGX55~gYLuGgaiLIkGGOpVesD-jiPhC3GUNLOQq5SmbMn411KU4XK8jsIshc7opqTe~2cv1dYoNg1VDyQ6SWiV8-O8rp2I3161UQ05nFF4SgkrOOieweZAO0VD~rsdntAmjyYLiExBo3vsVdpXvUihRPQAzxwu7ReUNbhIUwlP8bOCGd3-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City of Monona Zoning Board of Appeals on a split vote approved a variance that allows Tiffany and Jason Tobias to enclose an existing rear deck at 1200 Brookhaven Circle only if the enclosed room does not expand the structure's footprint beyond what the board approved as a maximum.

The Tobises sought an 18-inch extension from the current nonconforming deck to create a conditioned sunroom because they said both work from home and need additional indoor space. Zoning staff told the board the property encroaches on two setback standards cited in the application: the street-yard setback (the zoning packet references section 480-24(d)(4)(a)) and the shore-yard setback (section 480-24(d)(4)(d)). The survey in the record shows the street-yard setback at about 20.7 feet (the typical street-yard requirement is 30 feet) and the shore-yard requirement as 50 feet; the Tobises' house was described in staff materials as approximately 45 feet from the channel, and the applicants said the requested enclosure would place the wall roughly at 46 feet.

The board spent most of its discussion on the legal standard for a dimensional variance: whether the applicants have shown an \"unnecessary hardship\" or a unique physical property limitation that prevents reasonable use of the property under current rules. Several board members said a desire for more usable indoor space because of telework or sunlight on the deck does not by itself meet the hardship standard. Zoning staff and multiple commissioners discussed that existing nonconforming structures are generally allowed to continue but that the Monona ordinance (Chapter 480, cited by staff) limits extensions or enlargements of nonconforming buildings.

Tiffany Tobias described why the family wanted the enclosed room: \"we are looking to have another living space, another working space, so that we could stay in the home\" and explained the house's location near UW Hospital and related caregiving needs as part of the household's reasons for staying. She and her husband said they had a structural engineer draft plans and that the existing deck has a small cantilever of less than 12 inches; enclosing the space would keep the posts in the current spots and add interior usability.

Neighbors provided written support. Doug, the zoning administrator, read four letters into the record from adjacent homeowners saying the proposed small increase would have \"zero negative impact\" on views, privacy, or the channel.

Board members discussed prior variance decisions on the block and noted that some nearby properties are more nonconforming than the Tobias lot. Commissioners also noted the lot would not meet today's minimum standards if replatted: staff said the lot is roughly 2,500 square feet smaller than the 10,000-square-foot standard that would apply for a newly platted lot in this zoning district.

After extended deliberation the board first voted on a motion to deny the application; that denial motion failed. The board then voted to approve a narrower variance: authorization to enclose the deck so long as the enclosure does not expand beyond the existing deck's footprint (the board's motion required the enclosure to \"not exceed the footprint\" and to address items listed by staff). The motion passed. The applicants were instructed to follow up with zoning staff to confirm the exact dimensions and conditions of the approval.

The decision allows the Tobises to proceed with a conditioned sunroom if the final plan conforms to the footprint limitation the board imposed; it does not authorize a broader outward expansion into the shore yard or street-yard setbacks beyond the footprint cap. The board and staff emphasized that a future request to enlarge beyond the approved footprint would require a new application and separate review.

The record for this item includes staff findings, the applicants' plans and survey, and four letters from nearby property owners that were read into the public record. The board's approval included direction that the applicants coordinate final plan details with zoning staff before building permits are issued.","After lengthy review, the City of Monona Zoning Board approved a limited variance allowing Tiffany and Jason Tobias to enclose an existing rear deck as long as the enclosure does not extend beyond the deck's current footprint; an initial motion to deny failed.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Zoning board denies shore-yard variance for new home after neighbors raise construction and setback concerns

Monona zoning board limits variance for Brookhaven Circle sunroom to existing footprint