Kenosha zoning board denies variance for attached breezeway at 6832 Pershing Boulevard

At its June 2025 meeting, the Kenosha Zoning Board denied a variance request from Michael Ash for relief from principal building setback requirements so the breezeway that attaches his permitted garage to his house can remain.

City staff recommended denial, saying the breezeway converts the accessory structure into part of the principal building and therefore must meet the ordinance setbacks. Staff told the board the application “does not meet any of the findings of section 9.05(b) of the zoning ordinance,” and characterized the change as a self-imposed hardship discovered during a permits review and inspection.

Neighbors and the applicant’s supporters told the board the structure fit the neighborhood and was intended to help the applicant provide in-home care. Eric Hallgard, 3818 Fifth Avenue, who said he was speaking on behalf of the applicant, described the motivation for the connection: “the idea is to have the ability to get his father into this accessory structure of the garage and get him from accessory structure into his home in a sheltered space away from weather,” Hallgard said.

Staff outlined the permitting and inspection history: a permit was issued in 2021 for an accessory structure that complied with accessory setbacks (reduced setbacks for accessory buildings in the RS‑2 district), there was an initial inspection, and no final inspection was called for. The attachment between the garage and house was discovered later when inspectors reviewed open permits. Staff said the ordinance intention is to keep principal buildings and accessory buildings separate and that conditional variances are not authorized: the board may either grant a variance or deny it, staff said.

Board members asked whether removing walls and leaving a roof or canopy would change the legal status; staff said an uncovered canopy could be more defensible but that walls, doors and windows are likely to be considered an attachment. Commissioners also discussed timing: staff said prior orders issued March 31 gave compliance until April 30, and if the variance were denied new enforcement orders would be reissued (staff said orders typically allowed 30 days for repair previously and that, given the timeline here, an order upon denial could allow a much shorter compliance window).

After public comment and discussion, the zoning board voted to deny the variance. The board recorded the motion to deny and the chair announced the variance had been denied.