Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Walworth County board approves lot‑width variance for Geneva Township home

3449558 · May 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Walworth County Board of Adjustment approved a variance allowing Ryan and Patricia Dussault to build a residence on a lot narrower than the ordinance requires, after members debated tree loss, lot shape and fill requirements.

The Walworth County Board of Adjustment on May 15 approved a variance allowing Ryan and Patricia Dussault to build a residence on a Geneva Township lot that is narrower than the county ordinance requires.

Board members decided the requested 174‑foot lot width, below the standard 200‑foot requirement for the planned residential development, met the variance criteria and would not harm the public interest.

The decision matters because the county’s zoning ordinance ties allowable lot width to a planned residential development formula: two‑thirds of the normal 300‑foot requirement, resulting in the 200‑foot baseline cited by staff. County zoning staff told the board the development language predated the subdivision’s approval in 2003.

In discussion, members debated whether moving the house farther from the tree line and toward the road would better preserve the conservation intent of the C2 Upland Resource Conservation District. One member said moving the house back would require substantial fill, potentially preventing construction for years while soils settled; another said the lot’s curved shape and slope create a unique limitation compared with neighboring parcels. The board noted the adjacent parcel to the east (tax parcel JTR00003) appears to have a similar width issue.

After discussion, the board voted to approve the variance. Board members said the proposal would match surrounding homes’ setbacks, would not be located close to adjacent lot lines and would preserve more of the tree line than shifting the house rearward.

No formal conditions or follow‑up tasks were announced at the meeting.