Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whitefish Bay trustees deny proposal to split corner lot after hours of neighbor testimony
Summary
After more than three hours of public comment and legal debate, the Whitefish Bay Village Board voted 1–6 to reject a certified survey map to split 4753 North Wilshire into two lots, citing neighborhood safety and concerns about creating substandard parcels despite staff and the petitioner’s counsel saying the map met statutory criteria.
President Buckley and the Village Board on Nov. 18 rejected a certified survey map (CSM) that would have split 4753 North Wilshire Road into two parcels, following more than two hours of public comment and a lengthy legal review.
Petitioner counsel Jonathan L. Jaac asked the board to approve the CSM, telling trustees that the map “complies with state law requirements” under Wisconsin Statute ch. 236 and with village code, and warning that failure to act within the 90‑day window could render the map approved by operation of law. Village staff and the village engineer also recommended that the technical requirements had been met, with staff noting revisions requested by the engineer had been addressed.
Neighbors who live around the triangular lot urged trustees to deny the split, emphasizing pedestrian safety, sight‑line problems at the Wilshire/Kramer corner and the character of the design district. Kellen Casper, a nearby resident, said the lot division would not meet the ordinance’s intent and argued the minimum‑width and depth requirements should be measured in a way that ensures buildable, rectangular building envelopes. Morgan Katron, another resident, highlighted child safety, saying the area includes “29 kids in the neighborhood” and that new driveways and closer house placement could create hazards. Multiple other residents — including Christina Ebner, Mary Pape and Julie Barck — expressed similar concerns about neighborhood fit and traffic safety.
Trustees questioned whether the board could rely only on the technical criteria in the municipal code or consider the village comprehensive plan and public‑safety consequences. The village attorney and village engineer both cautioned that the statute and ordinance impose largely objective tests for CSMs, and that denial on purely subjective grounds can be legally risky. One trustee observed that a denial could prompt immediate litigation; another said the board might be better positioned to defend a denial based on neighborhood context than to defend approval.
After debate, a motion to approve the CSM (conditioned on demolition of the existing dwelling before signing) failed for lack of a sustained second and ultimately the board recorded a 1–6 vote against approving the map. The board indicated it would prepare a written decision reflecting the basis for the majority vote and bring an agenda item back to a future meeting for that written determination.
The immediate practical effect is that the petitioner may seek relief in court or resubmit materials; staff noted the statutory 90‑day clock and the board’s schedule when discussing next steps. The board also took the public’s safety concerns under advisement and suggested the Public Works Committee review intersection sight‑line and traffic‑control issues in the area.
The board moved on to other business after the vote; the village manager reminded residents that staff will continue permitting and inspections processes if the property owner pursues new building plans.
