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

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.