Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Shoreland topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waupaca County Board grants 4‑foot shoreland setback variance to Galske property in Iola
Summary
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment granted a 4‑foot reduction in the shoreland setback for Steven H. and Karen J. Galske on a 0.47‑acre lot in the Town of Iola, citing limited buildable area due to a required mound septic system; the motion passed 4–1.
Get email alerts on the Variance Shoreland topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment granted a variance on April 11 to allow a dwelling on the Steven H. and Karen J. Galske property to remain within the shoreland setback by four feet.
The public hearing, opened at 10:57 a.m., concerned a 0.47‑acre parcel at E2229 Faldet Lane in the Town of Iola (parcel 09-24-5214). Applicant Steve Galske testified that a mound septic system and the small lot size constrained where a structure could be placed and that a four‑foot reduction in the shoreland setback was necessary. Galske told the board, "There should be no impact to others. 4' variance is needed to comply." No members of the public testified for or against the application.
Candace Bauer, Land Use/Code Enforcement Specialist, presented the county staff report, which recommended approval. Bauer explained that the lot was created in 1961, before adoption of current zoning and land‑division ordinances, and said the required septic drainfield consumed much of the buildable area. Staff concluded that unique physical limitations existed and that minimal relief would not undermine the intent of the Shoreland Protection Ordinance.
Board members voted to grant the variance by motion of Chair A. Richardson, seconded by Vice‑Chair D. Johnson. The motion passed 4–1: Chair A. Richardson — yes; Vice‑Chair D. Johnson — yes; Secretary J. Fulcher — yes; P. Leder — no; G. Marx — yes. The board found that the septic system and small lot constituted unique physical limitations and that the requested minimal relief would not harm the public interest.
The board closed testimony and moved to decision; staff noted they were not ready to schedule another meeting at this time.
