Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waupaca County board reverses enforcement on Snug Harbor patio and pergola, applicant to apply for after‑the‑fact permit
Summary
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment voted 3–2 to overturn the Planning & Zoning Director’s finding that a patio and pergola at E1104 Snug Harbor Lane violated setback and permit rules; the owner withdrew a sidewalk appeal and agreed to seek an after‑the‑fact land‑use permit.
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment voted 3–2 on July 17 to overturn a Planning & Zoning Department enforcement finding that a patio and attached pergola at the J Mark Investments LTD property on Snug Harbor Lane violated lot‑line setback and permit requirements.
Attorney Anders Helquist, representing property owner Jeff Petersen, told the board the patio and pergola sit on the side of the house that does not face the lake, measure below 200 square feet, and sit more than 7½ feet from the nearest property line. Helquist said the applicant will file an after‑the‑fact land‑use permit; he also withdrew the applicant’s claim concerning replacement sidewalks after reaching an agreement with zoning staff. "We will apply for an after‑the‑fact Land Use Permit for the sidewalks," Helquist said during testimony.
Land Use/Code Enforcement Specialist Candace Bauer told the board the property is in the Sewered Residential district and that staff had concluded the patio and pergola were placed in a side yard, not a rear yard, and therefore must meet a 10‑foot lot‑line setback. Bauer said staff measurements showed the patio exceeded 200 square feet (200.682 square feet) and that the department enforces front/rear yard definitions consistently. "The patio and pergola were constructed without a permit and within the side yard setback," Bauer said.
Board members debated whether the county code is ambiguous for waterfront lots where the lake might be considered the front. Member G. Marx said he viewed the structure as a rear‑yard improvement and worried the board was “splitting hairs” over square footage. Chair A. Richardson and M. Strebe favored the staff interpretation that the pergola sits in a side yard. After deliberation G. Marx moved to overturn the director’s decision; B. Abba seconded. The roll‑call vote was G. Marx yes, M. Strebe no, B. Abba yes, Vice Chair D. Johnson yes, Chair A. Richardson no.
The board’s ruling reverses the department’s determination for the patio and pergola but does not negate the department’s ability to require a permit. Helquist confirmed the applicant will pursue the after‑the‑fact permit process to regularize the work.
The Board of Adjustment recessed and later continued with a separate enforcement appeal regarding a screen porch. The board also noted two upcoming meetings: Aug. 3 and Aug. 21, 2023.
