Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board narrowly approves 10x14 second‑story deck on Bass Lake property after lengthy debate over hardship and “unused” road
Summary
After a split initial vote to deny, the Sawyer County Board of Appeals approved a variance to allow a 10‑by‑14‑foot second‑story deck on Michael Savitsky’s Bass Lake lot, concluding that lot configuration and an effectively unused platted road created a hardship for the applicant.
The Sawyer County Board of Appeals approved a variance allowing a 10‑by‑14‑foot elevated second‑story deck on property owned by Michael and Janelle Savitsky in the town of Bass Lake. The board’s final vote to approve was 4‑1 after an earlier motion to deny the request failed.
What the variance requested: the Bass Lake property lies adjacent to a platted but largely undeveloped and unmaintained section of Poplar Road. The applicant sought relief from town road setback requirements specific to the Northwoods Beach subdivision (a 44‑foot centerline setback for that road) and requested a 21‑foot centerline setback (6 feet from the right‑of‑way) for the proposed second‑story deck.
Why it was contested: several board members questioned whether the desire for a larger deck was a mere amenity rather than a hardship. Staff explained the property was small in depth and the original house was built under a prior variance; the existing home placement left little compliant space for a usable deck that also functions as a second‑story egress. Neighbors and board members noted that Poplar Road is a platted town road but is not maintained and effectively ends near the property; one board member described the road area as wetland and said the town’s plow likely stops at the Savitskys’ driveway.
Board debate and votes: one board member moved to deny the variance on the grounds that the applicant could obtain required second‑floor egress without a variance by constructing a smaller, permitted landing; that motion was seconded and received two votes in favor and three against, failing. A subsequent motion to approve the 10‑by‑14 deck—supported in discussion as reasonable given the lot configuration and the nonfunctional road—passed 4–1. Members emphasized that the decision hinged on the physical limitations of the lot (depth and setbacks) and the practical reality that the platted road is not a maintained, public travel corridor.
Conditions and next steps: the board did not attach additional mitigation conditions beyond standard permit requirements. Staff noted the possibility that if the town were ever to fully maintain or reopen the road, future conflicts could arise; the board emphasized decisions are made based on the current property configuration and existing ordinances. The board’s decision will be memorialized in findings of fact and is subject to the standard appeal process.
Ending: the board discussed related upcoming cases and administrative procedures before adjourning.
