Kenosha zoning board defers decision on variance for breezeway at 6832 Pershing Blvd.

The City of Kenosha Zoning Board on Monday opened a public hearing on a variance request from Michael Ash for relief from principal building setback requirements to legalize a breezeway attaching a garage to the house at 6832 Pershing Boulevard. Staff told the board the request did not meet the findings required under section 9.05(b) of the zoning ordinance and recommended denial.

During public comment, neighbors and friends spoke in support of the applicant. Eric Haugard said the breezeway was built to help the applicant care for his father and that the work followed informal guidance from a retired contractor. Michael Ash told the board his father is a 100% disabled Vietnam veteran and said the breezeway was intended to allow safer movement between the garage and house in inclement weather. Neighbor Erica Buskirk said she lives next door and described the applicant as a reliable member of the neighborhood. A friend, Zachary McKenzie, said the code language is difficult to interpret and urged leniency.

City staff summarized the zoning analysis and the permitting/inspection record. Staff noted the parcel is a standard rectangular lot and concluded the hardship appears self-imposed, saying the request did not meet the ordinance's four findings. Staff also reported the permit for the garage was approved on 12/02/2020, the first inspection occurred in March 2021, and city inspection staff issued orders to repair dated April 9 and April 30, 2025, after discovering the attached breezeway.

Staff cautioned that if the variance were granted the garage would be considered part of the principal structure, which could allow future owners to pursue uses (including additional residential space) that a detached accessory garage would not permit. Board members asked whether the city could issue a conditional approval that limited future use; staff said the city does not commonly issue conditional variances that restrict future owners and that a variance generally runs with the property.

After questions about neighbor notification and alternatives, the applicant requested more time to consult neighbors. The board voted to defer consideration to the next scheduled meeting so staff could consult the city attorney and provide a report; the motion to defer carried by majority vote. The board encouraged the applicant to bring neighbor statements or other supporting documentation at the next hearing. The meeting was then adjourned.

Next steps: the variance will return to the zoning board at the next scheduled meeting after staff consults with the city attorney and the applicant provides any additional neighbor statements or documentation.

Quotes used in this report come from the public hearing transcript and are attributed to speakers who identified themselves during the hearing.