Neighbors urge tighter review after Day Avenue rebuild leaves houses six feet apart

Trustees, staff and neighbors spent more than an hour on May 4 debating whether Whitefish Bay’s long‑standing three‑foot side‑yard setback and the architecture review commission’s (ARC) processes sufficiently protect adjacent homeowners after a Day Avenue rebuild.

Joel, the village planner, framed the issue: a teardown and rebuild on Day Avenue prompted complaints about the location of the new structure, excavation impacts and the proximity to the neighbor’s house. Joel noted the village’s three‑foot setback dates back roughly 90 years and that changing the setback would render many homes legally nonconforming. He cautioned that a “structure‑to‑structure” setback is uncommon among peer communities and could raise legal concerns. “No other community had such an ordinance,” Joel said, and city staff who were consulted expressed caution that the approach was not standard practice.

Trustees and staff discussed alternative, less legally fraught steps. Several trustees suggested ARC process changes—adding objective items to ARC’s checklist so commissioners are explicitly alerted when a neighboring property is legal nonconforming or when driveways/garages could be flipped to reduce excavation impacts. One trustee recommended asking ARC directly, "What data would help you catch a situation like this?" and requested ARC return suggestions. Staff agreed to bring ARC’s feedback and two or three code options (for example, a higher setback for new builds or a percentage-based rule) back to the board for consideration.

Neighbors told the board about personal impacts. Kelly Cloak (732 East Avenue), the adjacent homeowner, said she and her children were home when construction equipment hit her foundation, causing the house to shake. “An excavator hit our foundation as myself and my children were in the home. Our house shook,” Cloak said, asking for better notice and stronger ARC consideration of neighbor impacts. Howard Hopwood (723 East Avenue) said he observed crews repeatedly working on neighboring property and urged ARC to consider how a new house fits relative to adjacent properties.

Trustees discussed practical remedies beyond code changes: improving notice periods and ensuring neighbors receive and understand ARC packets, asking ARC to flag legal nonconformity on applications, exploring objective standards for specific cases, and possibly convening a subcommittee to reexamine ARC practices. Several trustees emphasized that the problem might be ARC’s application of subjective guidelines rather than the ordinance itself.

The board directed staff to place the Day Avenue case on ARC’s agenda to solicit ARC’s recommendations on what additional information or data would have helped identify the issue, and to return to the board with ARC feedback and a set of possible options for code or process changes.

The board did not adopt a code change at the meeting; instead trustees asked staff to pursue ARC input and report back with options.