Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Zoning board approves variance allowing resident to replace corner‑lot pool
Loading...
Summary
The Muskego City zoning board of appeals voted 5–0 to grant Ronnie Colleen Peaslee a variance to replace an above‑ground swimming pool in its original corner‑lot location, citing lot constraints and prior approvals despite current 40‑foot front‑yard setbacks.
The Muskego City Zoning Board of Appeals voted 5–0 on April 17, 2026, to approve a variance that lets petitioner Ronnie Colleen Peaslee replace an above‑ground swimming pool on a corner lot that no longer meets current front‑yard setback rules.
The petition, listed in the packet as Appeal 01‑2026 and read into the record by staff, seeks setbacks of 22.4 feet from the northern lot line and 23.5 feet from the eastern lot line for a pool on a corner property where the current front‑yard setback in the RS‑3 district is 40 feet. Staff cited municipal code Section 400‑18 and Chapter 400‑208(b) (swimming pools) in describing the applicable standards.
Peaslee, the property owner and petitioner, told the board the original pool was installed about 26 years ago and that there is effectively no backyard because the home fronts two streets. "We were under the impression that we had a variance," Peaslee said, adding the county later acquired land through eminent domain to widen Janesville Road, which reduced the lot and increased the hardship. Peaslee said the replacement will be the same size and in the same location, is fenced with a six‑foot vinyl fence and is not visible from Janesville Road or Kelly Drive.
City planning staff reviewed the file and said they found an earlier permit for the pool at the same location and size. The planner told the board that while staff typically recommends denial when the current code applies on its face, an elected board may find a hardship based on lot shape, prior approvals and the eminent‑domain acquisition. "It was approved in the location it sits today," the planner said, and added that a code clarification around 2015 redefined front‑yard treatments for corner lots, which is why staff could not administratively approve the replacement.
Board members asked whether the replacement could be sited in a code‑compliant location and probed how common the RS‑3 district and such corner‑lot constraints are in the city. Staff said no code‑compliant replacement location exists on the lot and noted one neighbor emailed support for the request. After discussion, the board moved to approve the variance. In a roll‑call vote Doctor Kayshaun, Mister Horenda, Mister Bossert, Mister Dushulski and Mister Patterson voted yes; the motion carried 5–0.
Staff told Peaslee they will follow up to wrap up permitting details. The meeting then moved to miscellaneous business and adjourned.
