Walworth County hears variance request to place fence inside shoreland setback; DNR raises legal concerns

Applicants Eric and Greta Wotowska asked the Walworth County Board of Adjustment on June 11 to approve a variance to construct a chain‑link fence inside the county's 75‑foot shoreland setback adjacent to a spring‑fed stream that flows toward Lake Como.

The request matters because the Department of Natural Resources told the board in a June 10 letter that, based on the materials provided, it “does not believe that this variance can satisfy all 3 criteria” required under state law for a shoreland variance, and the DNR said the board must consider cumulative public‑interest impacts on water quality and wildlife corridors.

At the hearing, Eric Wotowska said the lot is constrained by a roadway, a culvert and the stream and that strict enforcement of the 75‑foot setback “creates a practical difficulty and undue hardship.” He told the board the fence's “primary purpose is to create a secure perimeter to protect children and pets and deter theft and trespassing.” Town of Geneva plan commission and town board documents submitted to the county show the town reviewed and recommended approval in late 2024.

Walworth County staff displayed the site plan and explained distances shown on the aerial: the green line marks the regulatory 75‑foot setback and the blue dotted line shows the proposed fence. Staff and the town filing used different numeric descriptions in submitted materials: the town letter stated a proposed 26‑foot, 7‑inch setback from the water (documented as the town's exhibit), while the applicants described the proposed fence as approximately 48 feet from the shore in public testimony. County staff noted the difference and described the practical variance as roughly 26 feet between the required and proposed lines on the county map.

The DNR letter, entered into the record and signed by Shoreland Specialist Dale Rezebek, explained the agency's view of the three statutory variance criteria—unique physical limitations, no harm to the public interest and unnecessary hardship—and concluded the submission did not show property limitations unique among neighboring lots and that the lot “appears to be comparable in width and depth and shape to many of the other lots along this stream.” The DNR added that fences within the shoreland setback are allowed only in limited circumstances under an exemption in 2021 Wisconsin Act 105 and that the legislature intended close scrutiny of such fences when associated with roadways.

Board members asked the applicant to clarify whether the site's physical constraints are unique in the subdivision and reminded the applicant that a granted variance runs with the land and can allow future owners to make different choices. Chair Ann Seaver repeatedly noted that a variance “lasts forever,” urging the board to consider hypothetical future changes to the property if relief is granted. The applicant said the town had previously received neighbor support in writing (neighbors Roger and Nancy Wolf were cited in the town record) and that the town commission and town board each recommended approval at meetings in November–December 2024.

No final county decision was made at the hearing; the board closed the public portion and will take the matter up for decision at its next meeting. The hearing record includes the town's December 29, 2024 letter of support, the town plan commission minutes and the DNR's June 10, 2025 opinion letter as exhibits.

The County's shoreland ordinance cited during the hearing was Walworth County zoning code section 74‑29, which staff referenced as the ordinance purpose statement for shoreline protection and property‑value considerations. The board also reviewed the statutory standard described in the DNR correspondence.

If the county later grants a variance, that approval would attach to the property and remain in effect until changed by subsequent owner action or future regulatory process; the board emphasized that possibility when questioning the applicants.