Board member moves to deny variance for 1314 Jefferson Ave. addition

The Sheboygan City Zoning Board of Appeals on March 18 heard a variance request from homeowner David Repinski to legalize an addition at 1314 Jefferson Avenue that would reduce the rear-yard setback to roughly 3.1 feet and the aggregate side-yard to about 6.1 feet, well short of the city's 20-foot rear setback and 15-foot aggregate side-yard requirement.

Staff told the board the structure is an existing legally nonconforming building and said city code does not permit enlarging a nonconforming structure. Building inspection staff reported that work on the addition began without proper permitting or inspections; the original permit pulled in March 2025 was for interior alterations only, not an addition, and the work appears to be about 200 square feet, above the 150-square-foot threshold that requires a certified survey.

The applicant, David Repinski, said he believed he had the correct permits and described the work as a partial rebuild of deteriorated porch and foundation areas. He said he installed drainage, backfill and rough framing and described the project as a safety and habitability improvement: the house is about 100 years old, had termite and foundation damage, and he plans to occupy it when finished to provide a basement bedroom with egress for his girlfriend's nonverbal 16-year-old son, Andy Heyn. Repinski told the board he had letters of neighborhood support, including one from Adrian Christman praising the restoration.

"I thought I had the right permits," Repinski said, explaining that he had been told to call for inspections when the framing was up and that much of the work was done by him with a helper.

Staff emphasized the legal focus of the hearing. "We are not allowed to make structures more legally non-conforming," a building inspection staff member said, describing missing inspections and the lack of a required certified survey for the addition.

During deliberations, board member Kevin acknowledged the quality of the work and neighbor support but said the board's authority is constrained by the code and that he did not see a unique property hardship that would justify granting a variance. "I would like to put forward a motion to deny the variance request," Kevin said; the transcript records the motion but does not include a vote tally.

Board members reiterated that existing nonconformities may be maintained but cannot be expanded under current code. One member noted the city is in the process of reworking its zoning code, but that ongoing code revisions do not change the board's authority at this hearing.

The transcript ends after the motion and further explanation of the statutory standard; no formal vote outcome is recorded in the provided transcript. Next procedural steps were not captured in the recording.