Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Zoning board denies driveway setback variance for 3105 Wallenbeck
Summary
The Village of Cross Plains Zoning Board of Appeals denied an area variance request to allow a driveway extension at 3105 Wallenbeck, voting 3–2. Staff said the extension sits about 2 feet 6 inches inside the 5-foot pavement setback required by the municipal code; the board cited lack of unique hardship and concerns about precedent.
The Village of Cross Plains Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3–2 to deny an area variance that would have allowed a driveway extension at 3105 Wallenbeck to sit within the five-foot pavement setback required by the municipal code.
At a public hearing, a staff member told the board the applicant sought to widen the driveway “an additional 2 feet 6 inches” to create space to park an RV and other vehicles, and noted the extension was not included in the original right-of-way permit. The staff member summarized the applicable rule: “the minimum pavement setback is 5 feet from this side lot line,” and said the current work brings the pavement to about 2 feet 6 inches from the lot line.
The applicant acknowledged doing the concrete work himself and said the change resulted from a misreading of rules. The applicant told the board it was intended to make parking and daily access easier, saying he needed more room for family vehicles and an RV.
Board members examined the six statutory criteria for an area variance—unique property conditions, effect on public interest, substantial justice, unnecessary hardship, detriment to adjacent properties, and compatibility with the neighborhood. Several members said they did not find unique or special physical conditions on the lot that would justify a variance and expressed concern that approving the request could set a precedent that would weaken the ordinance’s setback requirements.
Chair Bob Green emphasized the board’s legal role in applying the code: “we actually have to follow the laws and the rules,” and noted that the board is limited to deciding whether the legal standards for a variance are met. Staff advised that an appeal would go to the courts and suggested the applicant could ask the village board to consider changing the ordinance, as the village previously adjusted patio setbacks after a recommendation from the board.
Neighbors and one written letter were reported in support of the extension; several residents said similar driveway pads exist around town but board members cautioned that past lax enforcement does not change the current code. The board also discussed alternatives such as a gravel pad and practical impacts such as runoff and aesthetics.
After discussion, the board voted to deny the variance by a 3–2 margin. Staff read the outcome and outlined appeal options and the possibility of seeking a village-board ordinance change. The meeting adjourned following the vote.
The Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision does not change the municipal pavement setback; any change to the setback standard would require action by the Village Board or amendment of the municipal code.
