The summer 2026 issue of the Marquette Lawyer magazine has a number of entries concerning the Hon. Diane S. Sykes, L’84, including a set of one-page essays by seven different faculty on how their Marquette Law School courses draw on her writings as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since 2004 or as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court between 1999 and 2004. This is the fifth of the seven essays. The illustration of the faculty member, taken from the magazine and appearing here with the blog post, is by John Jay Cabuay.

I switch over late in the semester in first-year Property from traditional common-law doctrine to modern zoning law. The students for the most part welcome the switch, but some find the abundant map amendments, conditional permits, special uses, and assorted variances as problematic additions to existing zoning ordinances. Fortunately for instructor and students alike, Justice Diane Sykes’s thoughtful opinion for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in State ex rel. Ziervogel v. Board of Adjustment (2004) not only sorts out the state standards for variances but also provides a valuable metaphor for understanding how variances might best be conceived.

The case itself involved a request for a variance from Richard Ziervogel and Maureen McGinnity, of Washington County. Ziervogel and McGinnity owned a property that fronted Big Cedar Lake and included a 1,600-square-foot summer home, located 26 feet from the high-water line for the lake. In hopes of converting the summer home to a year-round house, Ziervogel and McGinnity sought to add 10 feet to the top of their summer home, a vertical addition that would ultimately include an office and two bedrooms. In order to do so, they requested a variance because the local zoning ordinance prohibited the expansion of any structure within 50 feet of the lake. The local zoning board had denied the request, and the case, as it came through the courts, concerned the standard properly to be applied in considering a variance.