Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waukesha City board unanimously approves variance for addition at 2910 Skyline Court
Summary
The Waukesha City Board of Zoning Appeals on July 14 granted a dimensional variance allowing a rear-yard setback of 16 feet for a new addition at 2910 Skyline Court, where code requires 45 feet. The five-member board voted unanimously after hearing city staff and the homeowner, and noted the lot's unusual five‑sided shape and neighbor support.
The Waukesha City Board of Zoning Appeals on July 14 approved an appeal by homeowner Brian Morrison to allow a new addition at 2910 Skyline Court with a rear-yard setback of 16 feet, where the RS-2 single-family zoning district requires a rear setback of not less than 45 feet.
City staff presented maps and aerial photographs showing the property at the edge of the city limits near Pewaukee and explained the lot’s unusual geometry — a five‑corner parcel that makes it difficult to identify a single, conventional rear lot line. Staff said the proposed addition would meet all other setback requirements and noted three neighbor letters supporting the project.
The variance request, filed as appeal 25Tax01000, would permit the homeowner to add an attached garage/addition intended to store vehicles and a boat. The applicant, Brian Morrison of 2910 Skyline Court, told the board he had not prepared full architectural drawings before the hearing because of the cost, but said the addition would use matching materials and a roofline similar to the existing house. "I didn't do a drawing because that's what I was gonna actually add because it was just to get a drawing with several thousand dollars, and I didn't wanna throw several thousand dollars if I couldn't get the variance," Morrison said.
Board members discussed whether the dimension shown on the plat should be treated as a rear yard or as a side yard because of the lot's irregular shape. Several members said that, functionally, the parcel's layout meant the addition would not materially impact adjacent properties; one member noted initial concern about the size of the variance but concluded the lot configuration and neighbor support reduced that concern. The board confirmed the four legal criteria required for a variance on the record before voting.
After the findings were read into the record, a motion to approve the appeal was seconded and carried unanimously. The board did not name a mover or seconder in the transcript. The five members present recorded a unanimous affirmative vote; the board then advised the applicant that building permits and standard plan review would still be required before construction could begin.
The board pleaded no additional public comment on the item after the applicant spoke. With the vote, Morrison was released to proceed with permit submittal.
No other substantive zoning items were addressed during this portion of the meeting.
