Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetland Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance request for house within wetland setback on Round Lake area lot
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a variance request from a Hayward‑area property owner seeking to place a proposed 54×42 house 19 feet from a non‑navigable wetland (county setback standard 40 feet); vote was 5–0.
The Sawyer County Board of Appeals on the same agenda denied a variance request for a proposed two‑story house on a waterfront lot that would sit about 19 feet from a non‑navigable wetland, short of the county’s 40‑foot wetland setback.
Zoning staff described the proposal as a 54‑by‑42 two‑story dwelling with a tuck‑under garage; after a wetland delineation the buildable area shrank and the applicants sought a reduced setback rather than fill the wetland. The county’s shoreland/wetland ordinance requires a 40‑foot setback from non‑navigable wetland complexes; the applicants requested a variance to place the house 19 feet from the wetland boundary.
Neighbors who testified opposed the variance on environmental and practical grounds, citing loss of wetland habitat, erosion and concerns about construction equipment moving through a narrow access easement. Staff said a legally buildable area remains on the parcel without a variance (staff estimated roughly 1,900 square feet of compliant footprint), and noted the town had tabled its decision and asked the applicants to consult DNR about wetland‑fill permits if they intended to pursue other options.
The board applied the three‑part variance test: unique physical limitations of the parcel, harm to public interest if the variance is granted, and whether the applicant faces unnecessary hardship that denies reasonable use. The board found (1) the property was not sufficiently unique in a way that met the variance standard, (2) granting the variance could harm wetland resources and neighborhood character and (3) the applicant had not shown an unnecessary hardship because a buildable configuration existed. The motion to deny the variance passed 5–0.
Board members said applicants may revise plans to fit the 40‑foot setback, pursue alternate variance requests with clearer hardship showing, or seek other permitting pathways but warned that filling and grading in wetlands involves separate DNR approvals.
