Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middleton zoning board approves variance to allow building closer to University Avenue
Summary
The Middleton Zoning Board granted a variance allowing a proposed building to sit 5 feet from the street-side setback along University Avenue, citing an irregular lot line, prior plan approvals and stormwater constraints; the motion passed 4–0.
The Middleton Zoning Board voted 4–0 to grant a variance that lets a proposed building sit 5 feet from the street-side setback along University Avenue, board members announced after a short public hearing.
The applicant’s representative, identified in the notice as Jeffrey Brancus and who spoke as Jeff Brinkus of Gary Brink and Associates, told the board the variance request was intended to keep the project consistent with the University Avenue corridor plan and with a previously approved planned development. Daphne, a board staff member, read the request and cited local zoning rules (Section 10.020.247 for MRH lots and Section 10.020.327 for MUA lots) and the city’s 2022 University Avenue corridor plan, which recommends a 25-foot setback from the curb.
Supporters of approval pointed to what they called practical hardships. Daphne recorded the board’s rationale as: zoning rules changed during the project’s life; an irregular northeastern parcel line and associated stepback requirements prevent shifting the building; moving the building back would harm on-site stormwater management; and a narrow DOT right-of-way jog complicates securing additional public right-of-way.
The applicant described the lot’s right-of-way jog and said the project would maintain the building edge envisioned in the corridor plan. "The gist of the request is really in keeping with the spirit of the University Avenue corridor plan," the applicant said, noting the façade and sidewalk work were part of earlier approvals.
Board members examined the site plan and agreed the flagged portion of the second building (in MUA zoning) triggered the variance requirement despite prior SIP/PD approvals covering much of the frontage. When asked whether moving the eastern building back 10 feet would affect stormwater calculations, the applicant said it would "significantly change" the building and hinder the project.
Daphne noted that the plan commission had conditionally approved the development and that the applicant chose the variance route rather than pursuing DOT relinquishment of a narrow sliver of right-of-way because that process can take years. "In other instances DOT has relinquished a tiny sliver, but it took two or three years," she said.
After deliberation, Wagenki moved to grant the variance based on the recorded hardships; the motion was seconded and the board unanimously voted in favor. The chair announced the variance was approved 4–0 and closed the public portion at 5:19 p.m.
The variance approval is a final discretionary approval of the zoning board; the transcript indicates this was the final zoning-board-level action required after plan commission approval and before common council final approval.
