Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waukesha City board approves variance for addition at 2910 Skyline Court
Summary
The Waukesha City Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously to grant a dimensional variance allowing an addition at 2910 Skyline Court to sit 16 feet from the rear lot line instead of the 45 feet required by section 22.257(c) of the zoning code.
The Waukesha City Board of Zoning Appeals on July 14 voted unanimously to grant a dimensional variance permitting an addition at 2910 Skyline Court to be built with a 16-foot rear-yard setback, where the zoning code requires 45 feet.
City planning staff presented aerial and street-level maps showing that the property sits on an irregular five-corner lot at the edge of the city limits adjacent to Pewaukee. The planner told the board the lot’s unusual shape complicates the legal determination of the rear lot line and noted the proposed addition meets other yard setbacks. "There are three letters of approval or recommendation from the neighbors," the planner said during the staff presentation, pointing to the closest property to the east as among those supporting the request.
Homeowner Brian Morrison, who identified himself at the hearing as the resident at 2910 Skyline Court, told the board he was "just looking for more space" and described the lot as "odd-shaped," saying a wooded divider and the lot arrangement would reduce impacts on Pewaukee properties to the north. He also said he had delayed spending several thousand dollars on construction drawings until he knew whether the variance would be approved.
Board members discussed whether the contested corner should be treated as a rear or a side yard given the lot geometry. Several members concluded the addition would not materially affect adjacent properties and that the site’s configuration distinguished it from a straightforward 45-foot rear-yard case. The board publicly affirmed the standard four findings required under section 22.257(c) (exceptional circumstances, necessity to preserve property rights, not sought only for economic gain, and no substantial detriment to adjacent properties).
A motion to grant the appeal was made, seconded and carried unanimously. The chair congratulated Morrison after the vote. The approval allows the homeowner to pursue permits and construction plans subject to normal building-permit review.
