Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Design Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oshkosh Plan Commission denies variance for front‑facade work at 1922 Mitchell Street
Summary
The commission voted 8–0 to deny a residential design standards variance after staff said alterations were made without permits and do not meet the city’s design standards; the owner said the work addressed an inoperable, freezing patio door and was done before winter for safety and efficiency.
The Oshkosh Plan Commission on Oct. 15 denied a homeowner’s request to retroactively approve front‑façade changes at 1922 Mitchell Street, voting 8–0 to adopt staff findings that the work does not meet the city’s residential design standards.
Staff told the commission the owner replaced an inoperable sliding patio door with two smaller windows, removed another front door and replaced a section of siding without permits or plan commission review. Staff said the changes could have been modified to meet the residential design standards and that approving the completed work would set an undesirable precedent. “As proposed, the front facade modifications do not meet the criteria for granting a variance and would set unnecessary precedent for future requests,” staff said.
Owner Christopher Amos told commissioners he and his wife made the changes because the sliding door was inefficient and causing freezing and pipe problems. “It was very inefficient. The floor would freeze, and ice would build up around the whole frame. I had issues with pipes freezing,” Amos said, explaining they acted to protect the home before winter.
Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on alternatives and consequences. Staff said the owner could have amended plans and pursued a different variance—options staff said they would have supported if pursued before the work was done, including larger windows that would meet the 10% opening variation or a plan meeting a 25% opening requirement.
Several commissioners said the most compelling reason to deny was that staff had repeatedly advised the owner of requirements and that the work was completed despite those warnings. The denial means the owner must either restore the façade to its previous condition or return to the commission with an amended application if they seek a permitted variance.
The motion to adopt staff findings and deny the variance carried on a roll call vote, 8–0.
