Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board grants Robinsons variance to build Cedar Lane home within highway setback

Waupaca County Board of Adjustment · March 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment approved a variance Oct. 7 allowing Lance and Mari Robinson to build a dwelling within the highway center setback on a 0.50-acre parcel in the Town of Union after staff and the board found a negative building envelope and no alternative building area.

The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment voted unanimously Oct. 7 to grant a variance that will allow Lance Robinson to construct a dwelling within the highway center setback on a roughly 0.50-acre parcel along Cedar Lane in the Town of Union.

Vice‑Chair D. Johnson opened the hearing at 6:02 p.m., and Lance Robinson testified that the lot has a negative building envelope and is bisected by a private road, leaving no practical location to meet all setback requirements. Robinson said they initially were denied a holding‑tank septic option but have since secured a soil tester and proposed a mound septic system to address on‑site sewage needs. "Several of the neighbors along Cedar Ln also do not meet the road center setback," Robinson said when explaining why the proposal is consistent with existing development.

Gary Schoen, Town of Union chair, told the board the town supports the request and that a new home would improve the tax base. Candace Bauer, Land Use/Code Enforcement Specialist for the county, presented the staff report recommending approval, concluding the application satisfied the three legal variance criteria: unnecessary hardship, unique physical limitations, and no harm to the public interest.

Board members discussed well placement and the lot's constraints; P. Leder moved and A. Richardson seconded the motion to approve the variance. The motion carried on a unanimous vote, and the board recorded the variance as granted.

The board’s written decision notes the lot’s negative building envelope and wetlands, the absence of an alternative build site without additional variances, and that the property’s location near the end of a dead‑end road reduces potential public‑interest impacts. The board indicated remaining setbacks, including the lake setback, will be met.