Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies gazebo variance at 1823 Sycamore Drive; neighbor privacy, property-line concerns cited
Summary
The Board denied Julie Fauble’s appeal to allow a 12x14 gazebo that sits partly in a side yard at 1823 Sycamore Drive, concluding the structure must be moved into the rear yard or otherwise made to comply after the building permit was denied; a neighbor objected citing fence encroachment and loss of privacy.
The Waukesha City Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request to allow a gazebo that sits partially in a side yard at 1823 Sycamore Drive, ruling the accessory structure must be relocated or otherwise made compliant with the municipal code.
City staff said the L-shaped house at 1823 Sycamore Drive (built 1972, zoned RS-3) contains a 12-by-14-foot metal-top gazebo the property owner installed in spring 2024 after a canvas gazebo previously on the site had collapsed. The owner applied for a building permit in July 2024; staff said the permit was denied because the gazebo sits in a side yard and detached accessory structures are permitted only in rear yards under municipal code chapter 22.58 (accessory uses and detached accessory structures).
Julie Fauble, the property owner, told the board she did not understand that a permit would be required and that she applied after being notified. "I never knew that I needed a building permit for a gazebo," Fauble said, noting many neighbors have similar structures. The city noted that while the combined square footage of the gazebo and an existing 96-square-foot garden shed is 264 square feet—well under the municipal 20% rear-yard occupancy threshold—the location violates the accessory-structure rule.
Neighbor Gretchen Kaczmarek of 1819 Sycamore testified that her fence sits about 18 inches inside her property line and that Fauble’s patio bricks run within 12 inches of the fence, which she said reduces her privacy. "It really does infringe on my privacy," Kaczmarek said, asking the board to consider the neighbor’s rights to enjoy her yard.
Board members discussed whether the gazebo could be moved back into the technically defined rear yard, the practical difficulty of reworking patio brickwork given a nearby tree, and the absence of a confirmatory survey in the city’s file to verify the neighbor’s fence-line claim. After deliberation the board voted to deny the appeal; chair announced the appellant must move the gazebo to comply with setback and property-line requirements.
The motion to deny was made by Tim Redick and seconded by Kevin Riley; the board recorded the denial and instructed the property owner to bring the structure into compliance or remove it.
