Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pewaukee board denies variance for 29'10" barn at 23355 Lindsay Road
Summary
A local Pewaukee board denied a request from Walter and Megan Powell to build a 29-foot-10-inch detached accessory barn at 23355 Lindsay Road, voting 3–1 on the grounds that the applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate the required property-specific "unnecessary hardship."
A local board in Pewaukee voted 3–1 to deny a variance request that would have allowed Walter and Megan Powell to build a 29-foot-10-inch detached accessory building at 23355 Lindsay Road.
The Powell petitioners told the board they bought and have been restoring a Cream City brick farmhouse built about 1900 and want a barn scaled to match the house. "Hardship is telling somebody…you cannot have the hearth or home you want because it does not fit the mold of properties that aren't like our property," petitioner Walter Powell said, arguing an 18-foot limit would force a long, flat building that would not match the house's character.
City staff advised denial. "Staff did review what was provided, did not find really sufficient reasoning or rationale considering the required findings in the ordinance to grant a variance, so we are recommending denial," Nick Fuchs, speaking for city staff, told the board.
Two nearby neighbors spoke in support. Matt Chineski, who lives west of the Powells, said he searched for years for a house with a workable accessory building and praised the proposed design: "When I saw Wally's plan, I thought, wow, this thing is awesome. I would love to have this property and this space." Another resident, Anton Wickman, asked about siting near a pond and whether the proposed height was in line with historic barns in the area.
Board members spent the bulk of their deliberation focused on the legal standard for a variance, which requires the applicant to show a property-specific unnecessary hardship, that the hardship relates to property conditions rather than personal choice, and that granting the variance will not harm the public interest. Several board members said they were sympathetic to the Powells' aesthetic and historic-preservation arguments but were not convinced those facts met the first prong as defined by case law.
After discussion, a board member moved to deny the variance. Following clarification about how a "yes" vote on the motion would be interpreted, the board approved the denial by a 3–1 vote. The chair said he regretted the result but remained concerned that the record lacked the evidence the board would need to sustain a variance under legal standards.
The hearing record shows the property is just under three acres and the applicant cited nearby barns as visual precedent; staff noted some of those examples are likely pre-existing nonconforming structures but said the application did not provide sufficient proof that those conditions create the legally required hardship. The board closed the hearing and adjourned after taking the vote.
The transcript provided no formal name for the board and did not list a meeting date on the record. The record shows the motion to deny (listed on the agenda as the decision on the Powell variance at N46 W 23355 Lindsay Road) carried by a 3–1 vote.
