Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shorewood Board of Appeals: Appeal over neighbor’s pool dismissed as untimely and beyond board’s authority
Summary
The Shorewood Board of Appeals denied a neighbor’s appeal seeking review of the village manager’s refusal to overturn a building permit for a pool at 2511 East Menlo Boulevard, finding the appeal untimely and outside the board’s jurisdiction.
The Shorewood Board of Appeals on a recorded vote denied an appeal from neighbors who asked the board to overturn a building permit that allowed construction of a pool at 2511 East Menlo Boulevard, finding the appeal untimely and the manager’s decision not to intervene not reviewable by the board.
Village attorney Matthew Bayer told the board the matter presented two jurisdictional obstacles: the appeal of the underlying permit was filed past the village’s 30-day appeal window, and the papered request actually sought to challenge the village manager’s decision not to overrule the inspector — a step Bayer said the code and state law do not allow. “My opinion is it does not,” Bayer said when asked whether the Board of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The applicants, neighbors who identified themselves in the record as Mallory O’Brien and Christopher Bridal, said they were not notified of the permit and only became aware of digging and construction in July. “To attach a time limit that starts ticking at a time we’re never told is just patently unfair,” Bridal said, arguing the pool as built appears larger than allowed by village ordinance.
Inspector Paul Burris testified the building permit was issued June 23, 2025, and that Shorewood’s code does not require neighborhood notification for pools. “The village code does not require notification for the construction of pools,” Burris told the board, adding that the review and issuance for this pool was handled in the same manner as prior pools in the village.
Bayer advised the board that Wisconsin law (cited on the record as Wis. Stat. 781.10) and local code limit who may challenge the issuance of building permits and that courts give deference to municipal departments’ interpretations and enforcement decisions. He said the appellants’ paperwork identified the decision being appealed as the village manager’s email declining to intervene, not the inspector’s original permit issuance — and that accepting such appeals would create an unworkable precedent allowing any past municipal action to be reopened by emailing a department head.
Board members discussed whether the board could waive the time limit. Bayer said the code contains no enlargement provision and suggested the only practical way to proceed would be by stipulation from the inspector’s office or the village to waive jurisdictional arguments. Several members expressed sympathy for the neighbors but noted legal and practical limits on the board’s authority and the absence of a workable remedy if the permit were later found improper.
After discussion the board voted to deny the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. The recorded roll call included Chair Wendy Smith (Aye), Steven Isaacson (Aye), James Robinson (Aye) and Evan Matthews (Aye). The motion carried and the appeal was dismissed. The board adjourned with no further business on the agenda.
The decision leaves the appellants’ remaining options (if any)—such as pursuing circuit court review or other legal remedies—outside the Board of Appeals’ purview as explained on the record by the village attorney.
