Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreland Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waupaca County Board affirms enforcement over 282‑sq‑ft screen porch built with alleged permit
Summary
The Board of Adjustment affirmed the Planning & Zoning Department’s enforcement 4–1, finding a screen porch exceeded the 200‑square‑foot Shoreland allowance; the owner says plans were submitted and spent roughly $90,000 on the addition.
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment on July 17 affirmed a county enforcement action by a 4–1 vote, finding a screen porch built at a Snug Harbor Lane property exceeded shoreland size limits and may have expanded a nonconforming structure.
Attorney Anders Helquist and drafter David Batten testified that the County had the plans and that the homeowner, Jeff Petersen, proceeded based on those plans; Batten said he initially designed a 14‑by‑14 screened porch that was later modified and that the homeowner submitted a permit application. Petersen said he spent $90,000 constructing the addition and that the building inspector inspected work during construction. "After I received the permit, I proceeded with the construction based upon the plan," Petersen said.
Land Use/Code Enforcement Specialist Candace Bauer said staff issued a Land Use Permit but that post‑construction inspection showed the screen porch measured about 282 square feet, exceeding the 200‑square‑foot allowance for lateral expansion within the shoreland setback. Bauer said the permit paperwork listed a 20' x 10' dimension on the application and that staff did not receive a completion notification or a footing inspection that might have flagged the discrepancy sooner. She told the board staff recommended the property owner seek a variance and obtain a survey to determine any encroachment into the shoreland setback.
Board members examined whether the department erred in its enforcement. Attorney Crystal Fieber advised the board that its role was to determine whether the department’s decision was incorrect or unreasonable, not to decide variance standards. Member B. Abba noted the department acknowledged a paperwork inconsistency but said a mistake does not negate reasonable enforcement. The motion to affirm the county position carried on a roll call of M. Strebe, B. Abba, Vice Chair D. Johnson and Chair A. Richardson voting yes; G. Marx voted no.
The Board closed the hearing at 1:48 p.m. and adjourned the meeting at 1:50 p.m. The record shows staff suggested next steps that include a survey and a variance process if the owner wishes to seek legal relief from the shoreland limits.
