Zoning panel approves limited variance for deteriorating deck at 5704 Cove Circle

The Monona Zoning Board of Appeals on a voice vote approved a variance allowing property owners Valerie and Drew Cathers to replace and expand a nonconforming second‑floor deck at 5704 Cove Circle, with conditions that the deck’s new usable depth be limited to 8 feet (excluding stairs) and that a screened porch beneath the deck be allowed within the same footprint. The board recorded the motion and second and took a voice vote; the transcript does not list a roll‑call tally.

The Cathers told the board the existing deck is “unsafe and deteriorating,” with rotted joists and unstable stairs that leave patio doors opening onto a 15‑foot drop. “This is about replacing a failing hazardous structure with one that is safe, functional, and consistent with the neighborhood,” the applicants said during the public hearing, arguing the house predates current shoreline setbacks and that strict compliance would deny them reasonable use of their home.

Doug, a city planner on the staff, told the board the key setback line for shoreyard regulation is the meander line shown on the survey and that typical shoreyard setbacks would be 50 feet inland from that line. He also said the site is outside the 100‑year floodplain under the city’s mapping that staff reviewed.

Neighbors and other residents offered both support and opposition during the public hearing. Britton Reynolds and a nearby resident, Lauren (5705 Cathy Thomas Circle), submitted or spoke in favor of allowing the Cathers to rebuild, saying the plan limits shoreline impact and would bring the property up to safer, modern standards. Dan Cassell, a next‑door neighbor, and another neighbor identified in the record as Mr. Costello opposed the expansion; Cassell said the proposed addition would reduce his property’s morning light and open feeling, and described concerns about excavation, drainage and how new footings could affect soil stability between the houses. He recounted sandbagging his yard in the 2018 flood and said parts of the backyard had been underwater then.

The applicants and their designer, Craig, said the proposed work would not extend farther seaward than the existing footings at the current deck location: the screened porch beneath would sit on the same permeable pavers now in place and the expanded upper deck would remain open to preserve sight lines. Craig told the board the proposed western bump‑out and stairs would not go beyond the existing deck’s footings and that the proposal had been reviewed by the city’s consulting engineer for floodplain concerns.

Board members debated the legal standard for variances—unnecessary hardship, unique property limitations and no harm to the public interest—citing earlier cases referenced in the meeting record and the city’s zoning code (the transcript cites section 4 80‑24 d 4 d and section 4 80‑40). Several members said public safety weighed in favor of allowing relief because the current deck is in poor condition and creates a hazard; others raised a long‑term concern about incremental “creep” toward the lake if expansions were routinely approved. The board discussed alternative layouts raised in the packet and by staff, including locating more of the new deck farther from the shoreline, but noted floodplain constraints and the meander‑line geometry limit options.

After discussion a board member moved to approve replacement of the deck with a maximum 8‑foot depth for the new deck surface (excluding the stairs as proposed), allow the enclosed (screened) porch beneath to occupy the same footprint, and require the project to meet building code, grading and permitting requirements. Another board member seconded the motion and the motion passed on a voice vote. The transcript records the board’s direction to watch for any future city consideration of changing the city’s meander‑line policy but places the current decision on the narrow variance standards and the safety need presented.

The board and staff noted practical building details that will be addressed during plan review and permitting: the depth and design of helical footings or other foundations will be determined by site geotechnical and structural work; grading and drainage changes will be required to prevent increased runoff to adjacent properties; and any replacement of pavers should use permeable materials to limit new impervious surfaces. Staff also said the project is outside the mapped 100‑year floodplain and that the applicant provided spot elevations and engineering review of flood concerns.

The decision allows the Cathers to move forward with the project as conditioned; building permits, detailed footing plans, and any required erosion‑control/grading approvals remain to be obtained.