Sawyer County Board of Appeals denies Johnson shoreland variance, 5–0

The Sawyer County Board of Appeals on a 5–0 vote denied variance 25-007, an application from Larry and Tammy Johnson to enclose an 8-by-26-foot lean-to and rebuild a primary dwelling nearer to Lake Hayward than county shoreland rules allow.

President Al Gerber moved to deny the request and said the proposal "is for the convenience of the owner" and that conforming options exist on the parcel. The motion was seconded by board member Steve Kelsey and carried by a unanimous vote.

County zoning staff told the board the property is 1.25 acres (tax ID 12822) and that the proposed enclosed area would be as close as 27 feet to the ordinary high-water mark, triggering a required variance under Sawyer County Code (Appendix B, §6.1). Staff also reviewed a 1998 variance affecting the site and said the applicant may rebuild existing nonconforming structures within their current footprints and vertically expand up to 35 feet without a new variance; changing an open lean-to to enclosed habitable space is what requires the variance.

Applicant Larry Johnson said the site is a narrow peninsula with a failed metal holding tank and limited space for a septic drain field, and that enclosing the lean-to and removing a 537-square-foot cabin would allow the couple to create a two-story retirement home while returning shoreline area to green space. "We're simply asking to enclose a 26 by 8 foot piece that's already there," Johnson said.

Opponents and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources warned the board about the vegetated buffer zone and cumulative shoreline impacts from repeated variances. Linda Zillimer, an Edgewater property owner, told the board the application "does not meet the three-step test" and raised concerns that town reviewers lacked the DNR letter when they acted.

Zoning staff read an objection letter into the record that argued the application failed the three statutory variance criteria (no unnecessary hardship, no unique property limitation, harm to public interest) and questioned assumptions about future impervious-surface increases and septic sizing.

After questions about setbacks for wells and septic systems (staff noted a drain field may be sited as close as 50 feet to the ordinary high-water mark and wells as close as 35 feet, and clarified the 60-by-80-foot compliant envelope identified is for structures only), board members concluded alternative, code-compliant options exist on the property and that the three-step test was not met.

The board denied the variance by voice vote, 5–0. Staff reminded the Johnsons that they have 30 days after the board’s decision letter to appeal to the circuit court.

The denial leaves the applicants with the options the board outlined: rebuild within existing footprints, pursue a separate variance process for a different request, or appeal the board’s decision.