City Hall

City of La Crosse, Wisconsin

400 La Crosse Street

La Crosse, WI 54601

Meeting Minutes - Final

Board of Zoning Appeals

Tuesday, June 17, 2025

4:00 PM

Grandad Room

City Hall, First Floor

Call to Order

Chair Cherf called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and explained the meeting

procedure.

Roll Call

4 - Douglas Farmer, Jai Johnson, James Cherf,James Szymalak

1 - Anastasia Gentry

Present:

Absent:

Variance appeals:

An appeal regarding the requirement to provide a 25-foot front yard setback at

2546 7th St. S, La Crosse, Wisconsin.

2691

David Reinhart and Andy Berzinski, representing the Building & Inspections

Department, were sworn in to speak. Berzinski went over the three requirements for

granting a variance: Unnecessary Hardship, Hardship Due to Unique Property

Limitations, and No Harm to Public Interests. Berzinski stated that the applicant has

applied for a permit to put an addition onto a Single-Family Dwelling that does not meet

the required front yard setback. Per Municipal Code Sec. 115-143(2), Front Yards, on

every lot in the Residence District, there shall be a front yard having a depth of not

less than 25 feet. The two adjacent main buildings are setback over 25 feet therefore

you cannot use the average of the two buildings. A variance of 14.5 feet would need to

be granted for this project to proceed as proposed. Cherf asked if the setback would

be 25 feet from the center line or the curb, if the variance is not granted. Berzinski

responded that there is a 14-foot right-of-way along, so the 25 feet would be in addition

to that 14; Reinhart added that the 25 feet would be from the property line (aerial view

of property lines shown).

Berzinski showed an aerial view of the GIS map, a picture of what the house currently

looks like and a view of the area where the applicant is proposing to put the addition,

as well as a site pan of the proposed addition and renderings of what it would look like.

Berzinski stated that there is no unnecessary hardship as the property can continue to

be used as a dwelling without the proposed addition, there are no unique property

limitations as this lot is larger than most lots in the City, and there is no harm to public

interests. Because of those reasons, the variance should not be granted.

Doug Buchner, 2546 7th St. S., was sworn in to speak. Buchner stated that there is no

way anyone in the City of La Crosse can apply a 25-foot setback and have enough

room to build. He added that variances have been granted fin this area and most are

closer than what is allowed. He stated that he had thought about the compromise

brought up at the last meeting and he would be willing to come back 25 feet off the

curb, which is more than the neighbor that is 17 feet from the curb. Buchner stated

that if he has to build it to requirements it would look out of place as most are 17 or 18

feet back with one being right on the lot line. He added that a lot of the properties don't

have additional storage and being on the river is a unique situation because you need

more storage for boats and other things. Most property owners store them outside, and

for him to store all of his things, he needs to build his garage addition the way he has

proposed. Buchner stated that the hardship is the tree that is in the way; to take that

down would be the hardship. To build back that far would also block the view of the

river. He added that the buildings built closer to the street are more modern buildings,

and those that don't have extra storage space leave their things in their front yards. He

stated that his whole argument is that it would look out of place and he would not have

room for his things to be stored.

Johnson asked Buchner to clarify the setback from the curb that he is requesting;

Buchner responded that the lot line is 14 feet back from the curb, which is unique

because most are at the city sidewalk. He stated that the setback he is requesting is

a 14-foot setback and added that the best use of the property is the river side and not

the front of the house.

Joe Van Aelstyn, 3152 33rd St S, was sworn in to speak. Van Aelstyn stated that

there are a couple of exceptions to the hardship rule, if an area was developed under a

prior subdivision or municipality, and the setback ranges from 40 to zero would be an

exception. He also stated that in relation to damage to the neighborhood, there would

be more absorbable ground on the water side for a rain garden or something. He

added that the buildings being closer to the curb provide traffic control by making

traffic slow down.

Cherf asked Johnson if she wanted to again ask for clarification on the exact setback

that is being requested as Buchner may now be asking for a 10.5-foot setback.

Johnson responded that they would as it looks like Buchner is asking for a larger

variance now than in the original request. Berzinski stated that the current variance

would be 14.5 feet (where the setback would be 10.5 feet); the original ask was for a

variance of 12.5 feet (where the setback would've been 12.5 feet). Reinhart added that

Buchner is now asking to be closer to the street than he originally requested (larger

variance, smaller setback).

A motion was made by Farmer, seconded by Johnson, that appeal be referred

until the Board has a full membership. The motion carried by the following

vote:

3 - Farmer, Johnson,Cherf

1 - Szymalak

Yes:

No:

1 - Gentry

Absent:

An appeal regarding the requirement that allows only 60 multi-family

apartment units above a commercial space at 922 & 928 State St., 915 & 927

Main St., and 115 & 119 10th St. N., La Crosse, Wisconsin (Haven on Main

project).

2692

Berzinski, still sworn, stated that the applicant has applied for a building permit to

construct a 70-unit multi-family apartment building with commercial space on the main

floor that does not meet the development density requirements for Traditional

Neighborhood Development zoning districts. Per Municipal Code Sec. 115-403(2),

Development Density, the number of residential dwelling units and the amount of

nonresidential development (excluding open spaces) shall be determined as follows:

the number of multi-family units shall be between 15 and 40 dwelling units per net acre

and all dwelling units constructed above commercial uses shall be permissible in

addition to the number of dwelling units authorized under this section. However, the

total number of dwelling units shall not be increased by more than ten dwelling units or

ten percent, whichever is greater. A variance allowing 10 additional apartment units on

this 1.25-acre development would need to be granted for this project to proceed as

proposed.

Berzinski showed pictures of what the development would look like once completed, a

site plan, and the old building that was on the property as well as a picture of the

property now with the building torn down. Berzinski stated that for the unnecessary

hardship, the Council approved the general plan for this property prior to the code

changing; the old code would have allowed this project to proceed as proposed. He

added that there are no unique property limitations as several lots were combined, and

that there is no harm to the public interest.

Farmer asked for the base number of dwelling units that would be allowed, and

Berzinski responded that it would be 60 for this project and they are asking for 10

additional. Cherf added that the Board can grant 10 percent or 10 units more than what

is allowed, whichever is greater. Johnson asked why there was a change to decrease

density. Tim Acklin, representing the Planning Department, was sworn in to speak.

Acklin stated that there wasn't a request to decrease density, but there was a request

to adopt a Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance that had specific

standards. They utilized a model ordinance created by the UW-Extension that they had

created for communities to use and the density range adopted was in that model

ordinance. Acklin added it wasn't that they were trying to decrease density, but it was

that they were wanting to create more housing units, and it just so happened that there

were some projects coming through that didn't meet the new requirements in the

ordinance.

Johnson asked if there was a provision for the project to be grandfathered in. Gideon

Wertheimer, representing the Legal Department, was sworn in to speak. Wertheimer

stated that under case law, they couldn't be grandfathered in unless a permit was

applied for prior to the change in the ordinance. In this case they had not applied for

permits prior to the change. If grandfathered, they'd be a non-conforming use within the

zoning. He added that if the variance is approved, it would go with the land, so if the

owner ever sells, they would still be allowed those 10 additional units if granted. Cherf

added that Wertheimer's statement about variances going with the land is important to

remember.

Farmer asked what the rationale is for the Board to get involved in something that

appears to be a planning process. Wertheimer responded that the Board is authorized

to grant more units than what code allows. Farmer asked why Council is not the one

deciding. Wertheimer responded that the Board could decide in this case because it is

a variance to the Code; a change to the Code would be decided by Council. Farmer

stated that in the appeal process, the Board doesn't have limits on what they can

grant. Wertheimer stated that they are only requesting 10 and the Board is required to

grant the minimum required, so if the Board believes the minimum is 80 units, they

could grant that.

Jeff Moorehouse, 1979 Sandalwood Dr, was sworn in to speak. Moorehouse stated that

they started the project over a year ago, with all of the design and planning prior to the

zoning change. Earlier in the process they had planned for 74 units and trimmed it

down to 70. They were notified two months ago that the density they planned was an

issue and they'd already finalized the plans for the project.

Paul Gerrard, 100 6th St. N., was sworn in to speak. Gerrard stated that they planned

the project back in September of 2024 when they got approval on land control and

submitted applications to the Wisconsin Housing & Economic Development

Authority, plus they've also gathered additional funding from many donors in the La

Crosse area. They've also negotiated a development agreement with the City for

additional public infrastructure.

Peter Gerrard, 100 6th St. N., was sworn in to speak. He stated that they obtained

their demolition permit and did the demolition and environmental work based on the

preliminary approval. At this point they have well over 2 million dollars invested in the

project.

Cherf confirmed with Reinhart that the final rezoning was approved for the project.

Wertheimer added that if the Board should grant the variance, it should be effective

after the zoning change has been published, which Reinhart stated would be June 21.

A motion was made by Farmer, seconded by Szymalak, to grant the requested

variance of 10 additional units, effective after publication of the zoning change

ordinance (Ordinance 5341 to be published 6/21/2025). The motion carried by

the following vote:

4 - Farmer, Johnson, Cherf,Szymalak

1 - Gentry

Yes:

Absent:

An appeal regarding the requirement that allows only 9 multi-family apartment

units at 518 & 526 10th St S, La Crosse, Wisconsin (C & C Residences

project).

2693

Berzinski, still sworn, state that the applicant has applied for a building permit to

construct a 24-Unit multi-family apartment building that does not meet the

development density requirements for Traditional Neighborhood Development zoning

districts. Per Municipal Code Sec. 115-403(2), Development Density, the number of

residential dwelling units

and the amount of nonresidential development (excluding open spaces) shall be

determined as follows: the number of multi-family units shall be between 15 and 40

dwelling units per net acre. A variance allowing 15 additional apartment units on this

.219-acre development would need to be granted for this project to proceed as

proposed. Berzinski showed an aerial view of the two parcels, exterior elevations of

what the building would look like, and floor plans with additional elevations. Berzinski

stated that for the unnecessary hardship, conversations had taken place about a

proposed development prior to the ordinance change but no plans had been reviewed,

so there is no unnecessary hardship. This lot is similar in size to other lots in the City,

so there is no unique property limitation. There is no harm to the public interest. For

these reasons, the variance should not be granted.

Farmer confirmed the number of units allowed; Berzinski responded that it is up to 40

units per net acre and for this project only 9 units would be allowed.

Jeremy Novak, 1205 Lauderdale Pl., was sworn in to speak. Novak stated that they've

been working on the project for three years in collaboration with Mayo Clinic and have

had multiple conversations with city staff and neighborhood associations during this

time. While planning, the code changed. They had donated land to Habitat for

Humanity and in hindsight they should've waited because of how the change in the

code has affected this project. They are working with Mayo Clinic on using existing

parking lots, so they don't have to create additional. Novak added that that it is a

unique project with the state of the housing needs; the units are studios and not

three-bedroom units so in terms of density it is not occupants it is units. Taking into

account the housing study done in La Crosse, they're creating single-occupancy units

to meet the needs outlined in the study. They will be retaining the community gardens.

They don't want to put multiple 4-bedroom houses on the parcels, because that would

not fill the market need.

Farmer stated that they are then asking to build fewer units; Novak responded that

they are asking to build 24 studio units, 15 more than what is allowed. Cherf restated

that if granted, they would have 24 one-person units the size of a hotel room. Cherf

added that they could build 9 four-bedroom units and still be compliant. Agreed and

added that they are asking for 24 occupants versus 36. Farmer confirmed that density

in this case means number of sleeping spots, not number of people. Novak again

added that the need is for single-occupant units. Farmer asked if they had applied for

any grants and Novak responded that they have. Cherf confirmed with staff that the

final zoning on the project was approved in April.

A motion was made by Farmer, seconded by Szymalak, to grant the requested

variance of 15 additional units. The motion carried by the following vote:

4 - Farmer, Johnson, Cherf,Szymalak

1 - Gentry

Yes:

Absent:

An appeal regarding the requirement that allows only 29 multi-family

apartment units at 413, 417, 423, 425, & 431 West Ave N and 1204 Badger St

(Badger West project).

2694

Berzinski stated that the applicant has applied for a building permit to construct a

48-Unit multi-family apartment building that does not meet the development density

requirements for Traditional Neighborhood Development zoning districts. Per Municipal

Code Sec. 115-403(2), Development Density, the number of residential dwelling units

and the amount of nonresidential development (excluding open spaces) shall be

determined as follows: the number of multi-family units shall be between 15 and 40

dwelling units per net acre. A variance allowing 19 additional apartment units on a

.73-acre development would need to be granted for this project to proceed as

proposed. Berzinski showed an aerial view of the parcels in the project, as well as

exterior elevations of what the project would look like when complete.

Berzinski stated that conversations had taken place about a proposed development

prior to the ordinance change but no plans had been reviewed, so there is no

unnecessary hardship. This lot is similar in size to other lots in the City, so there are

no unique property limitations, and there is no harm to the public interest. For these

reasons the variance should not be granted.

A motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Farmer, to grant the requested

variance of 19 additional units. The motion carried by the following vote:

4 - Farmer, Johnson, Cherf,Szymalak

1 - Gentry

Yes:

Absent:

An administrative appeal of the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the City

of La Crosse Zoning Code, Chapter 115-151 pursuant to Wis. Stat. Section

62.23(7)(e)7(b) and La Crosse Municipal Code Section 115-59(1), in regard to

permitted and non-permitted uses at 3102 Chestnut Place, La Crosse, WI

54603.

2695

David Reinhart, still sworn, stated that the applicant has applied for an administrative

appeal of two items. It appears one appeal is the determination that an industrial use

was approved for a party. It appears the other appeal is that a residential/commercial

rowhouse was refused. At this time no permits have been applied for or permits issued

for either of the alleged appeals submitted. The Zoning Administrator feels that for this

reason, these appeals shouldn't be heard as no official determination has been made

via issuance of a permit or denial letter being supplied.

Farmer asked if the original request was to have industrial and residential/commercial

on the same property; Reinhart responded that they have not had a permit applied for,

so he was unable to answer that question. Farmer asked why the appeal is before the

Board and Wertheimer responded that the appeal was filed so that is why it was before

the Board. Farmer asked Reinhart what caused them to make the ruling and Reinhart

responded that no official ruling had been made and a permit has not been applied for

or denied. Farmer confirmed that they are hearing an appeal on something that has not

been done. Reinhart stated that a number of years ago there was a similar case where

a permit was issued, and a neighbor did not agree with it and an appealed the decision

of the zoning administrator. Farmer confirmed that there was something concrete in

that case, but not in this. Wertheimer responded that the Board needs to decide

whether or not there was a decision; if they decide in the affirmative, they would need

to follow the analysis for the administrative appeals. Farmer stated that they could

grant the appeal, but it would mean nothing because a permit hasn't been issued yet

Johnson asked why it says that there was a determination that an industrial use was

approved and a residential/commercial rowhouse was refused. Reinhart stated that the

language came directly from the application, and they may want to ask that question to

the applicant. Johnson asked if the zoning would allow for a substation. Reinhart

responded that it depends on what lot they are referring to, one is commercial, and the

other lots are zoned R6 - multiple dwelling district. Cherf asked the Board whether or

not they wanted to hear from the applicant because no permits had been applied for;

Wertheimer responded that they should hear from both sides before making a

decision. Farmer stated that this may be a waste of time, but they should hear from

the applicant.

Joe Van Aelstyn, still sworn, stated that City staff had a meeting with Northern Natural

Gas without his knowledge; the gas company wanted to move a town border station

(TBS). The gas goes in and then goes out and it is noisy, smelly and visually

unpleasing. Van Aelstyn stated that the gas company notified them that they wanted to

move the TBS and he told them that they had a piece of land that might work. Van

Aelstyn stated that the gas company told him that city staff okayed the use of lot 6 for

the TBS. He stated that he worked with staff at the city to reduce the street size there

and Kwik Trip is building a medical clinic in the area so it will not be a good place for

the TBS. Van Aelstyn stated that whether they've applied for something or not, the

Board can say they don't want the use on that zoning there. Per Code there are things

that are listed as permitted uses under Commercial (zoning), and this use is not listed

there. Van Aelstyn stated that he was told by staff that if it is not there, by default it is

allowed. Van Aelstyn has added that (NNG) has threatened to do it by eminent domain.

Farmer asked who the injured party in this situation; Van Aelstyn responded that he is

the injured party because it would affect his property. Farmer asked how this would

help, if the Board agrees with him, because no permit has been applied for; Van

Aelstyn responded that then the gas company would stop from proceeding. Farmer

stated that it is not what the Board does, it might be more appropriate in the court. He

added that they could grant the request, but Van Aelstyn would still have nothing. Van

Aelstyn stated that it wouldn't be nothing, it would be the opinion of the Board. Farmer

stated that they shouldn't render a decision when it is not their fight.

Cherf asked if it would be effective for Van Aelstyn to ask the court for an injunction to

get to his preferred outcome in the matter. Cherf also asked if the gas company as a

public utility could override a decision by the Board through eminent domain.

Wertheimer responded that he does not know eminent domain law when it comes to

public utilities. He stated that a court would have to make the decision on eminent

domain. He added there is still the zoning code so there would still be a decision on