Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreland Deck Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lula Bell’s Dockside seeks second-story deck variance; DNR cautions board on shoreland precedent
Summary
Applicant seeks to build a second-floor deck over an existing nonconforming first-floor deck at N9228 East Shore Road; the Town of East Troy recommended approval but the Wisconsin DNR urged strict review of hardship and cumulative shoreland impacts.
Jeff Wawberger, representing the owners of Lula Bell’s Dockside, asked the Walworth County Board of Adjustment on May 14, 2025, for a variance from the county’s shoreland and street‑yard setback requirements to construct a second‑story deck that would align over an existing first‑floor deck.
Walworth County shoreland rules require a 75‑foot shoreland setback from the ordinary high‑water mark and a 3‑foot street yard setback; the applicants requested a 6‑foot shoreyard setback and a 1.3‑foot street yard setback. Wawberger said the proposed second‑floor deck “aligns exactly with the First Floor deck that exists” and argued stacking the deck above the existing nonconforming deck would not add new encroachment.
County zoning staff earlier denied a permit application because the proposed deck would be closer than the shoreland and street setbacks. Wawberger noted a county-issued permit for the lower deck in 1993 and that two tax parcels were combined to regularize parking; he also told the board structural support for the second floor could be achieved with helical piles to minimize excavation.
The Town of East Troy planning commission and town board both recommended approval in May; the town’s letters stated the proposed deck would be within the footprint of the existing deck, would not affect the viewing corridor, and recognized the building predates county zoning. The town planning commission and town board votes were recorded as unanimous.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources wrote to the board with concerns and guidance: Dale Resibek, DNR shoreland specialist, reminded the board that the applicant has the burden to prove unnecessary hardship and cautioned that repeated variances that allow new structures closer to the ordinary high‑water mark can have cumulative adverse impacts on water quality and habitat. The DNR letter was read into the record and marked as an exhibit.
Wawberger disputed the DNR’s practical effect at the site and emphasized safety and access for a permitted residential use above a commercial restaurant as reasons for the deck. No members of the public spoke in opposition at the county hearing. The town letters and DNR opinion are in the county packet; the Board of Adjustment closed the public hearing without issuing a county decision.
