Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petitioner’s low-profile roof gets rear-setback variance but side setback denied in Brown County
Summary
The Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a rear-setback variance for a homeowner’s small roof cover but denied a side-setback waiver, adding a condition that guttering be installed to prevent runoff to the neighboring property.
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance July 29 allowing a homeowner to build a 15-by-16 open-sided roof within the 25-foot rear setback at 7446 Honeylocust Drive, but denied a request to reduce the 3-foot side setback.
Kayla, the county planning staff member who presented the case, said the petition by Todd and Jill Wagner asked to build “1 foot from the rear and 1 foot from the side property line” and cited examples of reduced setbacks within the local conservancy district. The petitioners told the board the structure is intended to provide weather protection for a grilling area and would be supported on modest steel posts.
Petitioner Todd Wagner told the board the roof would be very low and unobtrusive; "The roof itself is only gonna be 6 inches in height," he said, and he said he could add guttering or notch the roof if required. Neighbors raised drainage concerns, saying the proposed slope could direct runoff onto their decking and yards; the neighbors requested any guttering be routed away from their property.
After discussion, the board concluded the rear variance would not be materially injurious if the petitioner installed measures to prevent runoff. The board’s motion approved only the rear setback variance, denied the side-setback variance, and made approval conditional on the petitioner installing guttering or equivalent measures to prevent water from flowing onto the adjacent property. Danielle conducted the roll call and the motion carried by recorded vote.
The petitioner was told to redesign or adjust details as needed to comply with the side-setback requirement if he wished to avoid that denial; staff will follow up on the condition as part of the permitting process.

