Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City grants variance to American Transmission Company to place external chiller equipment
Summary
At a Jan. 7, 2026 hearing, the city granted American Transmission Company LLC a variance from section 3 40-4.26(f) to place mechanical (chiller) equipment outside the building; applicant said manufacturer constraints forced external placement and staff recommended approval, citing adjacent industrial uses and buffering.
A city board granted American Transmission Company LLC (ATC) a variance on Jan. 7, 2026, allowing mechanical equipment for a chiller plant to be installed outside an otherwise hardened facility after staff recommended approval and the applicant described technical and cost constraints that prevented a fully internal installation.
Frank Lopez, a project engineer for consulting firm Ring and Du Chateau, told the board he and his firm were first engaged by ATC in 2019 and re-engaged in 2024 to update the facility's chiller plant. Lopez said manufacturers no longer make the fully internal systems the company originally sought, which forced the design team to place some equipment external to the building and to locate units on concrete pads that define the future equipment yard footprint. "This is a hardened facility," Lopez said, adding the company plans to enclose the equipment in a protected yard in the future but cannot afford that full scope now.
City staff informed the board that a typographical error in the Class 2 published notice had listed the meeting year as "01/07/2006" rather than 2026, but staff said follow-up mailings and posted notices informed property owners and the public that the hearing would be held that night. After reviewing site context and buffering, staff recommended approval, saying it did not anticipate the variance would "adversely impact[] other adjacent properties."
Board members questioned whether the facility would expand external equipment in the future and asked about screening and security. Lopez said the installed equipment has only modest additional capacity, would sit on concrete pads that define the footprint, and that ATC plans to add an enclosure later. Plans discussed at the hearing include a 16-foot-high expanded-metal security fence to reduce vandalism and access concerns; Lopez said the nearest neighboring parcel appears to be industrial, which staff and the applicant said reduces the likelihood of significant impacts to nearby uses.
The applicant and board discussed noise expectations. Lopez said staff had provided some sound-rating information for conditions "within, like, 30 feet" of the equipment but did not have the full equipment cut sheets at the hearing; the parties discussed figures in the 70s decibels range as approximations. The transcript does not record a definitive decibel specification being entered into the record.
During deliberations the board applied the typical three-part variance test (unnecessary hardship, unique physical conditions, and preserving the intent of the code). The presiding chair said the applicant had mitigated his safety and access concerns through proposed fencing and screening, and other members expressed agreement.
A motion to approve the variance was made and seconded on the record; the board voted by voice and the presiding chair announced the motion passed and the variance was granted. The transcript records no opposition. The meeting adjourned after the vote.
The transcript records the property by tax key (PWC-95-90) and gives an address string as "Walkershaw, Wisconsin 53188" as stated by the chair when introducing the item. The applicant identified the design firm (Ring and Du Chateau) and referenced technical support from Sigma Group (site civil) during testimony. The staff recommendation and the applicant's testimony are included in the hearing record.
