Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Galloway request for garage within highway and shoreline setbacks
Summary
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment denied a variance petition Oct. 7 from Jacquelyn and Carey Galloway to build a detached garage within highway right‑of‑way and shoreline setbacks on a 0.41‑acre lot in the Town of Dayton; staff recommended denial and the board concluded the applicants' circumstances did not meet legal hardship criteria.
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment voted Oct. 7 to deny a variance request from Jacquelyn A. and Carey R. Galloway that would have allowed construction of a detached garage within the highway right‑of‑way setback and shoreline setback on a roughly 0.41‑acre lot on State Road 22 in the Town of Dayton.
Vice‑Chair D. Johnson opened the second public hearing at 6:30 p.m. The Galloways testified that ingress and egress to their property are difficult and dangerous, especially in winter, and said a garage would allow them to back onto the property and access the highway more safely. Jacquelyn Galloway submitted letters and photographs showing snow and ice buildup and proposed installing a rain garden to manage drainage.
John Miller, Town of Dayton chair, spoke in support and cited the property’s topography and narrow lot width. Jason Snyder read supporting letters from local residents and a note from Kelly Nicolaus at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation stating that DOT had no additional right‑of‑way setback requirements. A letter from Dale Rezabek, a Wisconsin DNR shoreland specialist, was read stating county staff must ensure an applicant meets all three variance criteria and that the applicant’s personal circumstances are not a proper basis for approval.
Candace Bauer, Land Use/Code Enforcement Specialist, presented the county staff report recommending denial, saying the application relied on the applicants’ personal circumstances rather than the legal tests. Board members acknowledged the parcel’s uniqueness but disagreed on whether the hardship test was satisfied and whether a garage was the least intrusive remedy. P. Leder moved and A. Richardson seconded a motion to deny the variance; the roll‑call vote was P. Leder yes, A. Richardson yes, D. Johnson yes, J. Fulcher no, G. Marx yes. The motion carried, and the variance was denied.
The minutes record the board’s reasoning that two setbacks would be impacted (highway and shoreline), the highway setback is intended to protect drivers and the community, and shoreline setbacks protect water quality and wildlife; several members concluded granting the variance would undermine those purposes.
