Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Variance 6832 Pershing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Kenosha zoning board denies homeowner’s variance for attached breezeway at Pershing Boulevard

Kenosha Zoning Board of Appeals · June 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Kenosha Zoning Board on June 10 denied a variance request for an attached breezeway at 6832 Pershing Boulevard after staff said the work made the accessory building part of the principal structure and the request failed the ordinance findings.

On June 10, 2025, the Kenosha Zoning Board voted to deny a variance request from homeowner Michael Ash for work that attached a breezeway between his garage and principal dwelling at 6832 Pershing Boulevard.

Neighbors and the applicant told the board the structure was intended to help the applicant care for a family member with a disability and that nearby residents raised no objections. "I wish I could rewind time, and I wish I knew more about all this," Michael Ash said during public testimony, adding that he had checked with surrounding neighbors and found no complaints.

City staff told the board the zoning ordinance requires four findings be met to grant a variance and that at least one finding — preservation of the ordinance’s intent — was not met. Staff said the accessory structure, once attached with walls, doors and a roof, becomes part of the principal building and therefore must meet setback requirements for principal structures. Staff also said the permit lacked a final inspection and described the hardship as self-imposed.

Board members and staff discussed possible remedies if the variance were denied, including removing walls and doors so that only an open roof or canopy remained, and whether a canopy would still make the garage attached. Staff said removal orders following denial typically allow 30 days for compliance; the packet on file referenced earlier timelines that had given the applicant to April 30, and staff said a reissued order could shorten that window.

After discussion the board put forward a motion to deny the variance and recorded a roll-call vote; the chair announced the motion passed and the variance was denied.

Next steps: staff said they would work with the applicant on what, if any, remedial building permits or adjustments could bring the site into compliance. The board did not approve any conditional variance.