Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Front Yard Deck Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wauwatosa BZA grants variance for front‑yard deck at 1314 Saint James Court
Summary
The Board approved a variance allowing a small front deck because the house’s lot is constrained by a bluff and most nearby houses have porches; the board found the four variance criteria satisfied and approved the request 4‑0.
The Wauwatosa Board of Zoning Appeals granted a front‑yard setback variance to homeowner Eugene Sczesny for a freestanding front deck at 1314 Saint James Court.
The board voted 4‑0 to allow the applicant to build a deck that would extend into the 25‑foot front‑yard setback, reducing the setback to about 17 feet at the deck location — an approximate 8‑foot variance from the code requirement. The house is already legally nonconforming, with an existing front corner extending into the setback.
Sczesny told the board he purchased the duplex in 2019 and has made multiple improvements since then, including driveway and retaining‑wall work in 2022 and removal of a deteriorated wheelchair ramp that previously projected nine feet from the house and spanned 22 feet across the front. He said the property sits at the base of the Wauwatosa bluff, which limits usable backyard space and that the proposed porch would provide private outdoor space for the lower unit. ‘‘The addition of the new deck on the front of the house will actually provide the lower unit … that private missing private space,’’ Sczesny said.
City staff explained that the existing concrete wheelchair ramp was considered hardscape and did not require a permit, while a wooden or freestanding deck is treated as a structure and therefore subject to the 25‑foot front‑yard setback. The applicant provided a new professional survey and neighborhood outreach; one written support comment from an adjacent property owner was entered into the record.
Board members applied the four variance findings: exceptional circumstances (the narrow lot and bluff at the rear), preservation and enjoyment of property rights (most nearby properties have porches or decks), absence of special detriment to adjacent properties, and that the hardship was not created by the current owner. The board added factual language to the motion noting the bluff and the visual benefit of a deck rather than a concrete structure in the same footprint. The motion to approve, amended to reference the bluff and neighborhood context, passed 4‑0.
Sczesny said he intends to scale down the preliminary plans; the board approved the variance for the deck extent discussed and advised the owner to work with staff on permit next steps. The board noted the variance rights must be exercised within one year of the decision.
