Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Sanitary Ordinance Holding Tank topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies request for holding tank at Faldet Lane property; owner says dwelling becomes uninhabitable

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 Board of Adjustment denied a petition by Steven and Karen Galske to install a holding tank to serve living quarters in an accessory structure, finding technical alternatives (A+0 mound) and no recorded permitted privy to justify an exception under the sanitary ordinance.

On April 22, 2021, the Waupaca County Board of Adjustment denied a variance request from Steven H. and Karen J. Galske to install a holding tank to serve proposed living quarters in an existing accessory structure on Faldet Lane.

Steven Galske testified that he bought the property believing it was buildable with a permitted privy that cannot be located in county records; he said a soil tester reported the property "failed" and that without a holding tank the structure would be uninhabitable. Galske told the board he likely would sell the property if the holding tank were not approved.

R. Fields presented the staff report recommending denial. Fields said the property could support an A+0 mound system — a possibility DSPS has verified — and that other special-site designs could be pursued. Staff noted the county has no record of a permitted privy for this parcel, so a holding tank cannot be treated as a replacement for a previously permitted sanitary system. Board members also pointed out the zoning prohibition on living quarters in accessory structures.

After deliberation, D. Johnson moved to deny and P. Leder seconded. The roll call vote was P. Craig—yes; D. Johnson—yes; J. Fulcher—yes; G. Marx—yes; P. Leder—yes. The board recorded findings that no unique physical limitations existed, that granting the variance would harm the public interest, and that the claimed hardship was not demonstrated because alternative systems (including an A+0 mound) were available.

The hearing closed at 12:53 p.m.; the minutes note the board completed its decision worksheet and returned the matter to the file.