Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Setback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After neighbor objections, board approves setback variance at 1023 East Vaughn with materials, height and setback conditions
Summary
The board approved a setback variance for an accessory structure at 1023 East Vaughn (a 30‑ft lot) after neighbors voiced concerns about materials, flood‑plain compliance and impact on property values; approval included conditions: 2‑ft side setbacks, 10‑ft rear setback, maximum peak height ~15 ft, similar materials to the primary structure, nonhabitable use and compliance with floodplain rules.
Madison City approved a setback variance for an accessory structure at 1023 East Vaughn after a lengthy discussion that included multiple neighbors expressing concern about proximity to lot lines, building materials and flood‑plain impacts.
Ryan Lee spoke for property owners John and Lisa Bennett, explaining the lot is 30 feet wide and that the requested setback relief is needed to site a two‑bay accessory structure. Staff told the board a prior use variance (BZVU25‑1) and a COA/building permit had been approved for a single‑family dwelling on the parcel; the outstanding issue was a detached accessory structure setback.
Several nearby property owners — including Lisa Hammock, Tony Hammock (property owner adjacent to the site), Steve Mccay and other commenters — raised objections focused on whether the accessory structure would be a metal 'pole barn,' how close it would be to property lines and whether it would adversely affect future high‑end homes planned nearby. Neighbors also asked whether construction in the floodplain would be permitted; staff and participants clarified that any building permit must comply with the city's floodplain ordinance and FEMA requirements.
Staff proposed reasonable conditions to address aesthetics and flood concerns: the board discussed requiring similar materials to the primary structure, specifying two‑foot side setbacks with a 10‑foot rear setback, a maximum peak height (15 feet was discussed as a practical cap), nonhabitable construction and strict compliance with floodplain requirements. A motion including those conditions passed on roll call: Rick Ferris, Scott Baldwin and Nancy Burkhart voted yes; Carl England voted no; Brian Emik abstained. The motion passed 3‑1‑1 and the approval is subject to standard building‑permit reviews and historic‑board review for facade materials where applicable.
Board members emphasized the narrowness of the lot and the legal focus on setback criteria; several members encouraged specifying conditions in the motion to make the board's decision more defensible if appealed.
