Shorewood board denies appeal of 8‑foot trellises at 4039 North Richland Court; variance request also fails

The Shorewood Board of Appeals denied an appeal on Jan. 9, 2024 by the homeowner at 4039 North Richland Court challenging a village correction that classified three 8‑foot trellis panels as fence panels and ordered the panels either reduced to 4 feet in height or moved 3 feet off the lot line. The board then considered and rejected a separate motion to grant a variance that would have allowed the panels to remain at their current height and location.

The ruling stems from a building permit the village issued in September 2023 for three 8‑foot trellis sections. After a neighbor complained, the village inspected the site and issued a notice of correction on Oct. 2, 2023 telling the owner to lower the panels to 4 feet or relocate them to meet accessory‑structure setbacks. Inspector Burris, the village building inspector, told the board that “no fence more than 4 feet in height may be erected between adjoining properties when the fence parallels an existing residence,” and that because the trellises sit close to a neighboring house the village interpreted them as fence panels subject to the lower height limit.

The applicant, Mr. Schwebbel, the homeowner at 4039 North Richland Court, disputed the village’s reclassification. He told the board the trellises were shown as trellises on a submitted landscape plan and that the work was substantially complete when the village issued the correction. “The trellises were designed in the plan per your code language,” Schwebbel said, arguing the structures are not intended or constructed to function as a fence.

A neighboring occupant, Sudan Picarelli, objected on safety and property‑damage grounds, saying the panels were installed on or very near the lot line and that their construction made them, in her words, “extraordinary burglar ladders, permanently installed burglar ladders.” Picarelli also said the posts are set deep in concrete on the lot line and expressed concern about damage to an adjacent historic house.

Board members and the village attorney discussed two paths the board could take: (1) review whether the building inspector misapplied the code (an appeal of interpretation) or (2) treat the application as a variance request and evaluate whether the owner met the statutory standards for a variance. The village attorney told the board that the applicant’s submission included variance criteria responses and advised the board it could consider both the interpretation and, if it denied the interpretation challenge, move on to a variance analysis under the village code’s variance standards (§5.35.58 as cited in the hearing).

After discussion, the board voted first on a motion to deny the appeal alleging the village had misapplied the code. Chair Wendy Smith, Member Michael Polson and Member Kara Espero voted to deny the appeal (motion carried 3–0). The board then took up the variance request. The motion to grant a variance that would have allowed the three 8‑foot panels to remain unaltered was moved by Michael Polson and seconded by Wendy Smith; the motion failed on a 3–0 vote, with all three members voting no.

In their discussion on the variance criteria, board members said they did not find the sort of exceptional or unusual circumstances tied specifically to the lot that the village code requires to justify a variance. Members noted the adjacent dwelling is a legal nonconforming structure that sits close to the lot line, but several members said that condition alone — common in older parts of the village — did not meet the strict standard for an exception. The board also weighed neighbor objections about potential detriment.

The board’s written decision and the meeting minutes will be distributed by the village to the applicant; the village manager also indicated that mediation services would be available if the parties requested them.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Deny the appeal alleging the village misapplied the code (relating to the Notice of Correction dated Oct. 2, 2023). Mover: Michael Polson. Second: Kara Espero. Vote: Wendy Smith — yes; Michael Polson — yes; Kara Espero — yes. Outcome: approved (3–0).

- Motion: Grant variance to permit three 8‑foot trellis structures to remain unaltered at the lot line. Mover: Michael Polson. Second: Wendy Smith. Vote: Wendy Smith — no; Michael Polson — no; Kara Espero — no. Outcome: failed (0–3).

What the board decided: The Board of Appeals concluded the village’s corrective order stands; the applicant must comply with the notice of correction (reduce panels to 4 feet if left at the lot line, or relocate them 3 feet off the lot line to allow 8‑foot height as an accessory structure) unless the applicant pursues other legal remedies outside the board’s jurisdiction.

Next steps: The village will issue a written order reflecting the board’s rulings and provide it to the applicant; the clerk indicated the village would supply the decision and that mediation was an option if the parties choose to engage it.