Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waukesha City Board of Zoning Appeals grants variance for house addition at 2910 Skyline Court
Summary
The Waukesha City Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously July 14 to grant a dimensional variance allowing homeowner Brian Morrison to build an addition with a 16‑foot rear-yard setback where the code requires 45 feet; the board cited the lot’s irregular five‑corner shape and neighbor support.
The Waukesha City Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously July 14 to grant an appeal by homeowner Brian Morrison to allow a rear‑yard setback of 16 feet for an addition at 2910 Skyline Court, instead of the 45 feet required by section 22.257(c) of the zoning code.
City staff presented overhead and street views of the property, noting it sits on the edge of the city limits and is an irregular, five‑corner lot that complicates how rear and side lot lines are defined. The presenter told the board there were three letters from neighbors supporting the proposal and that the addition would meet side‑yard setbacks; the staff recited the applicable code language, saying "there shall be a rear yard setback of not less than 45 feet." The board treated those facts as part of its findings.
Applicant Brian Morrison told the board he needs more space and described the lot as "odd shaped," saying trees and the lot configuration reduce the likelihood of an adverse visual impact toward neighboring Pewaukee properties. Morrison said he delayed paying for construction drawings until the variance outcome was known. "I just [want] more space," he said, explaining that converting his garage or building detached structures had constraints and that an attached addition made the most sense.
During deliberations, several board members said that while the numeric difference between the required 45 feet and the requested 16 feet is large, the practical arrangement of the yard and the five‑corner lot made the request less impactful. The board recited and affirmed the required findings of fact: that exceptional circumstances apply to the property; that the variance is necessary to preserve substantial property rights; that the request is not solely for economic gain; and that authorizing the variance would not substantially harm adjacent properties or the public interest.
After the findings were affirmed, a board member moved to approve the appeal and the motion was seconded. The board then voted "aye" and the motion carried unanimously. The board noted the applicant must still obtain required building permits and submit construction drawings that match the approved parameters.
The meeting closed after brief congratulations to the applicant and a confirmation that permit and plan approvals remain required.
