Shorewood Board of Appeals denies front-yard disconnection exemption, grants backyard exemption at 4074 North Lake Drive

At a Shorewood Board of Appeals meeting called to order at 5:30 p.m., the board considered an appeal of the village’s enforcement of a downspout disconnection notice for the property at 4074 North Lake Drive and issued split rulings: it denied an exemption for the southwest (front-yard) downspout and granted an exemption for the southeast (backyard) downspout.

The issue matters because the village’s downspout disconnection program aims to reduce clear stormwater entering the village’s combined sewer system — a measure intended to reduce basement backups and sewage overflows — but homeowners and the board also raised concerns about bluff erosion and public-safety problems such as ice on adjacent walkways.

Phil, a licensed professional engineer with Strand Engineering, testified that the program is “driven by trying to minimize the amount of clear water that gets into the sewer system to minimize basement backups and sewage overflows throughout the village.” He said his June 2022 inspection identified four downspouts at the property and that, in his view, the front-yard downspout he labeled number 2 met the village’s five criteria for requiring disconnection. He reported re-checking the site recently and said the backyard downspout labeled number 4 “does meet the criteria for being not exempt,” but he also noted uncertainty about whether a manhole in the yard drains to the combined sewer and that a more detailed analysis would be needed to say whether redirecting water would create erosion toward the Lake Michigan bluff.

Homeowner Mark Canucko told the board he has lived in the house about 30 years and said he has never had a basement leak. He said discharging roof runoff to grade raised two concerns: ice forming on a nearby driveway and sidewalk and increased water reaching the bluff, which he and a Sheboygan firm, Miller Engineers, attribute to gradual slippage. “I’m afraid of ice buildup,” Canucko said of the front-yard discharge, and he said additional water “would just exacerbate the situation” at the bluff where retaining walls are planned.

Inspector Burris explained the village program’s practical safeguard: if, after implementing on-site stormwater management, reconnection to the combined sewer causes property damage or creates a nuisance, the downspout may be reconnected to the combined sewer via the standpipe receiver without further village approval. As Burris summarized, the program text allows reconnection “if roof drainage has caused property damage or unsafe conditions,” and he said it does not require the homeowner to seek the board to reverse the connection.

Board members discussed the two disconnection locations separately. Several members said they did not find the front-yard discharge suitable for an exemption because the five ordinance criteria for disconnection were met there. By contrast, the board expressed concern about potential bluff erosion and the lack of definitive evidence about where the yard manhole drains; those concerns supported granting an exemption for the southeast/backyard downspout under municipal code section 415-18(b)(3)(d), the board said. Chair Wendy Smith moved to deny the exemption for the southwest/front downspout; that motion passed 5-0 (Wendy Smith, Steven Isaacson, James Robinson, Scott Waligora and Kevin Matthews voted yes). The board then voted 5-0 to grant an exemption for the southeast/backyard downspout under the cited ordinance section.

The board’s actions preserve the village’s objective of reducing stormwater into the combined system while allowing the homeowner an exemption for the backyard downspout because of the bluff-related erosion concern. Inspector Burris reiterated that if the homeowner later experiences property damage or a public-safety nuisance after implementing on-site measures, the downspout may be reconnected to the combined sewer via the standpipe receiver.

With both motions decided, the board adjourned.