Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marshfield planning commission declines code change; keeps conditional-use exceptions for accessory structures and fences
Summary
After discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to maintain current city code language that allows conditional-use permit exceptions for residential accessory structures and some fence standards, rather than recommending an amendment to remove that exception route.
The City of Marshfield Planning Commission on March 18 reviewed a proposed municipal code text amendment that would remove the ability to request exceptions to residential accessory structure and certain fence standards through a conditional use permit. After extended discussion, commissioners voted to keep the current code as written.
Planner Bryce Henbrook presented background: under the existing code, applicants may request conditional use permits (CUPs) for exceptions such as the number and gross floor area of residential accessory structures and, for fences, exceptions to height or materials standards. Henbrook said Wisconsin Act 67 (2017) limits local discretion on conditional-use permitting: if an applicant meets all ordinance requirements and agreed conditions, the local government must grant the CUP. Henbrook said that outcome can make it difficult to deny large outbuildings or nonstandard fences and that eliminating CUP-based exceptions would force applicants to pursue variances, which are harder to obtain because they require a showing of unnecessary hardship.
Commission discussion covered how often applicants revise plans to meet code versus seeking exceptions, the role of lot coverage and setbacks in limiting structure size, and concerns that allowing large accessory buildings could reduce the number of buildable home sites inside the city. Commissioners cited staff reports that the city reviewed about 30 exception requests to accessory-structure space rules in the past 10 years and that since a 2021 text amendment increased allowable accessory space there have still been roughly six recent exception requests.
Several commissioners said the existing process lets property owners who genuinely need larger structures or higher fences pursue relief; others worried the CUP pathway encourages proposals that, if approved, remove buildable residential lots or otherwise conflict with community goals. Henbrook emphasized that zoning tools such as lot-coverage limits, setbacks and district-specific standards also constrain how large accessory structures can be, and that variances remain an available but stricter route.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to maintain the current code language for the two sections — residential accessory structures and fence standards — and asked staff to continue monitoring the number and nature of exception requests. The motion passed on roll call with Teastrich, O'Reilly, Kim Frederick, John Caprillion, Bernardi and Meyer voting yes.
