Waukesha appeals board unanimously approves variance for Bethesda LLC at 576 Elizabeth Street

The Waukesha City Board of Zoning Appeals on Feb. 16 voted unanimously to grant Bethesda LLC a dimensional variance to rebuild a manufacturing storage building at 576 Elizabeth Street six inches from the rear lot line where the city zoning code requires a 25-foot rear-yard setback.

City planning staff described the property as a multi-section manufacturing and storage building adjacent to the Jiffy Gel plant (operated by Ares Industries) and said portions of the rear building had been removed in recent years. Staff told the board the applicants plan to reconstruct within the existing historic footprint to serve loading and unloading functions tied to the adjacent railroad.

“The footprint of the new building will be less than what was originally there years ago,” a city planner said, noting photographs from 2018 and work done around 2020. Mark Rollinger, speaking for the applicant, gave his address and said he was available to answer questions: “I’m more here if you guys have any questions,” he said.

Board members asked staff about demolition timing, neighbor notification, and whether any other site location was feasible. Staff said notices are sent to properties within 100 feet and that, given existing drives and the layout, there appeared to be no practical alternative location on the lot. Several members said the proposed building would not be closer to neighboring property lines than the prior building footprint.

Staff read the four findings required under section 22.38 of the zoning code; the board recorded affirmations on each finding and then approved the variance on a motion by Chair Christy D'Angelo, seconded by another board member. The board announced the approval as 4–0 and advised the applicant to proceed to the planning commission.

The board did not record any conditions beyond the ordinary requirement that the applicant obtain planning commission approvals and permits; staff noted that planning commission review would still be required should the applicant move forward with detailed plans. The board’s vote finalizes only the variance; the applicant must still satisfy any subsequent planning and permitting steps.

Copies of the staff presentation and the site photographs were provided to the board as part of the record. The board’s approval follows its determination that (1) extraordinary circumstances apply to the property, (2) the variance is necessary to preserve substantial property rights, (3) the request is not based solely on economic gain, and (4) authorization will not materially impair the zoning code’s purpose.

The board members recorded as voting in favor were Christy D'Angelo, Tim Reddick, Kevin Riley and Eric Dunst. The applicant was told to proceed to the planning commission for the next steps.