Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies driveway‑extension variance request for 1740 North Clark Street
Summary
The Appleton City planning board voted to deny a request to extend a driveway 8 feet into the front yard at 1740 North Clark Street, finding the applicants had adequate parking and that the request was a convenience rather than a legal hardship; the motion failed for lack of four yes votes.
The Appleton City planning board voted on May 19, 2025, to deny a variance that would have allowed a driveway extension at 1740 North Clark Street. The motion to approve the 8‑by‑17‑foot extension failed after a roll call produced five "no" votes and the board did not reach the four‑yes threshold required for a variance.
The applicants, Jacob Diet and his wife Courtney, told the board they own the duplex at 1740 North Clark Street and said the lot layout leaves no practical place in back to add the off‑street parking the code requires for a two‑dwelling property. "We live at 1740 North Clark Street," Jacob Diet said when introducing himself, and he described how the garage and narrow lot make it difficult to provide a usable second space for the upstairs unit.
A neighbor, Kelly Hyaman, spoke in favor of the request during the public comment period, saying, "They take care of their property." But city staff told the board the application did not meet the legal standard for a hardship. As staff put it during the discussion, "the hardship criteria is not met because this is just a convenience." Staff also read relevant code language, noting the zoning ordinance limits driveway extensions into the front yard and that residential parking requirements apply by use and unit count.
Board members pressed the applicants on dimensions and sight lines and raised safety and precedent concerns. Several members said that although four cars could be placed end to end on the property to meet the numerical parking requirement, the proposal would create a sight‑line obstruction at the sidewalk and could set a precedent for similar front‑yard expansions across the city. After discussion, the board took a roll call vote. The board recorded no yes votes and five no votes (Miss Kane; Mr. Angstrom; Mr. Lisonbee; Mr. Spiro; Mr. Babitz), so the variance was not approved.
Because the requested variance would attach to the property for the life of the structure if approved, members weighed long‑term consequences as well as immediate convenience. The board closed the item without granting the variance; applicants may pursue other administrative or permitting options but the planning board did not change the code requirement at the meeting.
The board then moved to other routine business later in the agenda and adjourned after concluding officer elections and a discussion about meeting times.
