Board of Appeals — Agenda packet

CITY OF MINERAL POINT 137 HIGH STREET, SUITE 1 MINERAL POINT, WI 53565 608-987-2361 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK-TREASURER Mayor – Danny Clark City Administrator | Troy Maggied | administrator@cityofmineralpointwi.gov City Clerk-Treasurer | Christy Skelding | cityclerk@cityofmineralpointwi.gov AGENDA CITY OF MINERAL POINT BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING Thursday, September 24, 2026, 5:00 PM City Hall Community Room 1. Call to Order, Roll Call, and Confirmation of Compliance with the Open Meetings Law. 2. Approval of July 23, 2026 Minutes. 3. Public Hearing regarding the three requests for variances: a. The request of Randy Fleming, owner of a property located at 44 Jackson St. (Tax Parcel 251-0364), for a variance from Section 154.04(C)(3)(c) of the Municipal Code pertaining to the maximum building height requirements and rear yard setback requirements. The applicant proposes the construction of an attached garage within 16’ of the rear lot line, a variance from the 30’ rear lot line setback standard. b. The request of Michelle Bensen, owner of a property located at 427 Doty St. (Tax Parcel 251-0594), for a variance from Section 154.04(D)(3)(c) and (d) of the Municipal Code pertaining to the side and rear yard setback requirements. The applicant proposes the construction of a attached garage within 18’ of the rear lot lines, a variance from the 30’ rear lot line setback standards. c. The request of Jennie Andrews, owner of a property located at 642 Commerce St. (Tax Parcel 251-0281), for a variance from Section 154.04(D)(3)(d) of the Municipal Code pertaining to side yard setback requirements. The applicant proposes the construction of a deck within approximately 10’ of the side lot line, a variance from the 12’ side lot line setback standard. Action: Open Public Hearing, Hear testimony, and close public hearing. 4. Variance No. 2026–BOA02 – Request of Randy Fleming, owner of a property located at 44 Jackson St. (Tax Parcel 251-0364), for a variance from Section 154.04(C)(3)(c) of the Municipal Code pertaining to the maximum building height requirements and rear yard setback requirements. The applicant proposes the construction of an attached garage within 16’ of the rear lot line, a variance from the 30’ rear lot line setback standard. Action: Approve or deny Variance. 5. Variance No. 2026–BOA03 – Request of Michelle Bensen, owner of a property located at 427 Doty St. (Tax Parcel 251-0594), for a variance from Section 154.04(D)(3)(c) and (d) of the Municipal Code pertaining to the side and rear yard setback requirements. The applicant proposes the construction of a attached garage within 18’ of the rear lot lines, a variance from the 30’ rear lot line setback standards. Action: Approve or deny Variance. CITY OF MINERAL POINT 137 HIGH STREET, SUITE 1 MINERAL POINT, WI 53565 608-987-2361 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK-TREASURER Mayor – Danny Clark City Administrator | Troy Maggied | administrator@cityofmineralpointwi.gov City Clerk-Treasurer | Christy Skelding | cityclerk@cityofmineralpointwi.gov 6. Variance No. 2026–BOA04 – Request of Jennie Andrews, owner of a property located at 642 Commerce St. (Tax Parcel 251-0281), for a variance from Section 154.04(D)(3)(d) of the Municipal Code pertaining to side yard setback requirements. The applicant proposes the construction of a deck within approximately 10’ of the side lot line, a variance from the 12’ side lot line setback standard. Action: Approve or deny Variance. 7. Adjourn. Agenda Posted and Distributed: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/21405205479734?p=OYSBkO0dwBEpe6KjKG Meeting ID: 214 052 054 797 34, Passcode: ZN7yA2fr Dial in by phone +1 872-256-4172,,721748207# Phone conference ID: 721 748 207# Reasonable accommodations for participation in this meeting by persons with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, will be made upon request and if feasible. Please contact the City Clerk’s office (608-987-2361) at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting so that necessary accommodations can be provided. CITY OF MINERAL POINT 137 HIGH STREET, SUITE 1 MINERAL POINT, WI 53565 608-987-2361 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK-TREASURER Mayor – Danny Clark City Administrator | Matthew Honer | administrator@cityofmineralpointwi.gov City Clerk-Treasurer | Christy Skelding | cityclerk@cityofmineralpointwi.gov MINUTES CITY OF MINERAL POINT BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING Thursday, July 23, 2026, 4:15 PM City Hall Community Room CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Steve Leger called the meeting to order at 4:15 pm. David Engels Present Jeff Meyer Present Bill Grover Present Steve Leger Present Justin Potterton Present Others Present: Administrative Advisor Honer, Administrator Maggied, Clerk-Treasurer Skelding, Dennis Jacobson, LuAnn Jacobson APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MAY 19, 2025 MEETING Motion (Grover/Meyer) to approve May 19, 2025 minutes. Motion carried, all voting aye (5-0). PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE REQUEST OF DENNIS JACOBSON, OWNER OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 314 FILARDO COURT (TAX PARCEL 251-0370.007), FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 154.04(D)(3)(C) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. Motion (Meyer/Potterton) to open Public Hearing at 4:17pm. Motion carried, all voting aye (5-0). Dennis Jacobson, property owner, addressed the Board regarding his request for a rear yard setback variance. Mr. Jacobson explained the following that the property currently has an 8' x 8' patio at the rear of the house. The steps leading from the sliding door to the patio are narrow, and he is seeking to create a larger, more usable outdoor area. In its current configuration, only two people can comfortably occupy the space. He considered several alternatives before selecting an attached deck as his preferred option. Mr. Jacobson stated that he has discussed the proposal with Administrator Honer and Building Inspector Chris Michaels. The proposed deck would extend approximately 17 feet into the setback. The structure would be an open deck with a railing; no roof would be attached. Motion (Grover/Meyer) to close concurrent Public Hearing at 4:22 p.m. Motion carried, all voting aye (5-0). VARIANCE NO. 2026-BOA01 – REQUEST OF DENNIS JACOBSON, OWNER OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 314 FILARDO COURT (TAX PARCEL 251-0370.007), FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 154.04(D)(3)(c) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. The Board inquired whether the Jacobsons had spoken with their neighbors regarding the proposed plans. Mr. Jacobson responded that he had spoken with the neighbor directly behind his property and asked for his thoughts; that neighbor indicated he had no problem with the proposal. The other neighboring property, located kitty-corner to his, is a rental unit that is not frequently occupied. CITY OF MINERAL POINT 137 HIGH STREET, SUITE 1 MINERAL POINT, WI 53565 608-987-2361 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK-TREASURER Mayor – Danny Clark City Administrator | Matthew Honer | administrator@cityofmineralpointwi.gov City Clerk-Treasurer | Christy Skelding | cityclerk@cityofmineralpointwi.gov City staff reported that no comments had been received regarding the request. Notice letters were sent to over 30 property owners. Motion (Grover/Potterton) to approve the request of Dennis Jacobson, owner of a property located at 314 Filardo Court (Tax Parcel 251-0370.007), for a variance from Section 154.04(D)(3)(c) of the Municipal Code pertaining to the rear yard setback requirements. Motion carried by roll call, all voting aye (5-0). ADJOURN Motion (Potterton/Meyer) to adjourn at 4:28 pm. Motion carried, all voting aye (5-0). 9/15/2026 TOPIC: Variance No. 2026–BOA02 – Request of Randy Fleming, owner of a property located at 44 Jackson St. (Tax Parcel 251-0364), for a variance from Section 154.04(C)(3)(c) of the Municipal Code pertaining to the maximum building height requirements and rear yard setback requirements. The applicant proposes the construction of an attached garage within 16’ of the rear lot line, a variance from the 30’ rear lot line setback standard. ☒ New Business ☐ Unfinished Business ☐ Reports ☐ Closed Session ☐ Ordinance/Resolution Meeting: Zoning Board of Appeals Department Reporting: Administration Submitted by: Troy Maggied Request: The applicant seeks to construct a garage and bedroom addition that will encroach upon the rear yard setback. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting an Area Variance to provide relief from the setback restriction. ANALYSIS: 1. The variance is not contrary to the public interest and such variance will be in general harmony with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Code. Found. There is nothing in this request contrary to the public interest. 2. The variance will not permit the establishment of use that is not permitted or permissible in the district. Found. The variance does not create an unpermitted use. 3. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, structures, or buildings involved and which do not apply to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Found. The property is unique in the city in that it is served by a well and septic system, which prohibit s construction to the south (due to septic field), east (due to septic tank), and north (due to the well). Construction to the west is restricted and limited due to the existing driveway. 4. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. Not Found. The setback requirement of the ordinance does not prevent the owner from using the proposed lot for residential use, per the literal interpretation of the ordinance. However, the ordinance also states that its intent is, in part, to “implement the community comprehensive plan or plan components .” (154.01C). Thus, the ordina nce sho uld be interpreted in l ight of the city’s changing demographics and housing goal as outlined in the 2025 Comprehensive Plan to, “Expand housing opportunities to provide diverse options for families, the workforce, and seniors.” The City’s 2024 Housing Study also identifies the need for “age -friendly” housing. The proposed addition is due, in -part, to the applicant’s desire to remain in his home in Mineral Point and the addition will enable this by creating an attached garage and single -floor living accommodation. 5. The hardship is not shared generally by other land or buildings in the area. Not Found. No hardship is identified. Complying with the ordinance does not currently prevent the applicant from using the property for residential uses. 6. The hardship results from the strict interpretation of this ordinance and is not the result of self-created or self- imposed circumstances. Not Found. The circumstances are unique but the ordinance does not currently create a hardship. RECOMMENDATION: Criteria for a variance are based on the applicant’s ability to demonstrate that they meet all three variance standards: 1. Unnecessary hardship. The zoning administrator does not believe that a hardship exists, per the literal reading of the ordinance, prohibiting the applicant from currently using his property for residential purposes. Future use may be impacted by the property’s challenges to aging in place. 2. Variance is due to conditions unique to the property. The conditions at this site are unique in that it is served by a septic system and well. The property is also unique in its large lot, rural nature. The adjacent lot to the north that is impacted by the variance is a wooded lot with no residence or structure. 3. Confirmation that the variance creates no harm to public interest. There is no harm to the public interest. 9/15/2026 TOPIC: Request of Michelle Bensen, owner of a property located at 427 Doty St. (Tax Parcel 251-0594), for a variance from Section 154.04(D)(3)(c) and (d) of the Municipal Code pertaining to the side and rear yard setback requirements. The applicant proposes the construction of an attached garage 18’ from the rear lot line, a variance from the 30’ rear lot line setback standards. ☒ New Business ☐ Unfinished Business ☐ Reports ☐ Closed Session ☐ Ordinance/Resolution Meeting: Zoning Board of Appeals Department Reporting: Administration Submitted by: Troy Maggied Request: The applicant seeks to construct a garage that will encroach on the rear setback requirement. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting an Area Variance to provide relief from the setback restriction. ANALYSIS: 1. The variance is not contrary to the public interest and such variance will be in general harmony with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Code. Found. There is nothing in this request contrary to the public interest. The proposed garage would be served by an existing driveway. The removal of the existing garage would reduce a non-conforming structure that violates the ordinance on two counts – rear and side setbacks – in favor of a new structure that, while still non-conforming, would increase the rear yard setback. 2. The variance will not permit the establishment of use that is not permitted or permissible in the district. Found. The variance does not create an unpermitted use. 3. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, structures, or buildings involved and which do not apply to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Found. The application materials argue that the conditions of the property do not allow compliance with current zoning ordinances , however the ordinance does not prohibit the applicant from using the lot for residential use. Special conditions exist due to the age of the residence and current garage pre -dating modern automobile size and frequency of use. At the time of construction, a relative low percentage of rural residents owned automobiles, and those that did had autos that were significantly smaller than the current size. An existing garage built in the ea rly 1900’s exists on site, but will only accommodate the smallest of current vehicles. This lot and residence were constructed in a time when universal auto ownership was a requirement of life, and also before the size of autos increased to the current state. This is often the state with other lots in the same district, but not so with new lots being built in the city. 4. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. Not Found. The setback requirement of the ordinance does not prevent the owner from using the proposed lot for residential use, per the literal interpretation of the ordinance. However, the ordinance also states that its intent is, in part, to “implement the community comprehensive plan or plan components.” (154.01C). Thus, the ordinance should be interpreted in light of the city’s changing demographics and housing goal as outlined in the 2025 Comprehensive Plan to, “Expand housing opportunities to provide diverse options for families, the workforce, and seniors.” The City’s 2024 Housing Study also identifies the need for “age-friendly” housing. The proposed addition is due, in -part, to the applicant’s desire to remain in her home in Mineral Point and will enable this by creating an attached garage and single-floor living accommodation. 5. The hardship is not shared generally by other land or buildings in the area. Not Found. No hardship is identified. Complying with the ordinance does not currently prevent the applicant from using the property for residential uses. 6. The hardship results from the strict interpretation of this ordinance and is not the result of self-created or self- imposed circumstances. Not Found. The circumstances are unique but the ordinance does not currently create a hardship to current use. RECOMMENDATION: Criteria for a variance are based on the applicant’s ability to demonstrate that they meet all three variance standards: 1. Unnecessary hardship. The zoning administrator does not believe that a hardship exists, per the literal reading of the ordinance, prohibiting the applicant from currently using her property for residential purposes. Future use may be impacted by the property’s challenges to aging in place. 2. Variance is due to conditions unique to the property. The conditions at this site are not atypical to those found elsewhere in the district, but the home and garage are constructed in a time prior to current auto usage and auto size. 3. Confirmation that the variance creates no harm to public interest. There is no harm to the public interest. 9/15/2026 TOPIC: Request of Jennie Andrews, owner of a property located at 642 Commerce St. (Tax Parcel 251-0281), for a variance from Section 154.04(D)(3)(d) of the Municipal Code pertaining to side yard setback requirements. The applicant proposes the construction of a deck within approximately 10’ of the side lot line, a variance from the 12’ side lot line setback standard. Action: Approve or deny Variance. ☒ New Business ☐ Unfinished Business ☐ Reports ☐ Closed Session ☐ Ordinance/Resolution Meeting: Zoning Board of Appeals Department Reporting: Administration Submitted by: Troy Maggied Request: The applicant seeks to construct a deck that will encroach upon the side yard setback. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting an Area Variance to provide relief from the setback restriction. ANALYSIS: 1. The variance is not contrary to the public interest and such variance will be in general harmony with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Code. Found. There is nothing in this request contrary to the public interest. A walkway and stairs exist and the proposed use in this location remains the same. The addition of the deck to the residential structure will not increase residential density. A deck will improve the aesthetics of the area by covering the deteriorating stairs and sidewalk. 2. The variance will not permit the establishment of use that is not permitted or permissible in the district. Found. The variance does not create an unpermitted use. 3. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, structures, or buildings involved and which do not apply to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Found. The home is only accessible from two entrances, each requiring stairs, on the front and south side of the house. There is no access to the house from the north or west, the two sides closest to the dri veway and garage. Access requires stairs, and the existing stairs are unsafe and deteriorating. 4. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. Not Found. The setback requirement of the ordinance does not prevent the owner from using the proposed lot for residential use, per the literal interpretation of the ordinance. However, the ordinance ’s stated purpose is to “promote health, safety , … prosperity, aesthetics, and general welfare of this community,” and also states that its intent is, in part, to “ secure safety from fire …stabilize and protect property values… and preserve and promote the beauty of the community.” (154.01C). The proposed deck will improve the aes thetics of the property b y covering up deteriorating stairs and sidewalk, an d ensure the applicant’s safety by replacing deteriorating stairs, sidewalk, and handrail with structurally sound access to and from her home. 5. The hardship is not shared generally by other land or buildings in the area. Not Found. No hardship is identified. Complying with the ordinance does not currently prevent the applicant from using the property for residential uses. 6. The hardship results from the strict interpretation of this ordinance and is not the result of self-created or self- imposed circumstances. Not Found. The circumstances are unique but the ordinance does not currently create a hardship to current use. RECOMMENDATION: Criteria for a variance are based on the applicant’s ability to demonstrate that they meet all three variance standards: 1. Unnecessary hardship. The zoning administrator does not believe that a hardship exists, per the literal reading of the ordinance, prohibiting the applicant from currently using her property for residential purposes. Future use may be impacted by safety concerns related to the deteriorating stairs, sidewalk, and handrail. 2. Variance is due to conditions unique to the property. The conditions at this site are unique in that there are limited access points into the home, all of which are on the opposite side of the home from the garage and driveway and all of which require stairs. 3. Confirmation that the variance creates no harm to public interest. There is no harm to the public interest.