Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sanitary Ordinance Holding Tank topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies holding-tank variance for Cedar Lane lot; town supports, neighbors oppose
Summary
The Board of Adjustment denied a petition to allow a holding tank to serve a proposed dwelling on a Cedar Lane lakefront parcel, citing available alternative septic options and public‑health considerations under the Waupaca County Sanitary Ordinance.
At its April 22, 2021 meeting, the Waupaca County Board of Adjustment denied a variance request from Lance and Mari Robinson to install a holding tank to serve a proposed one-bedroom dwelling on a roughly 0.5-acre Cedar Lane lot.
Lance Robinson testified the lot’s lake frontage, road placement and wetlands make it difficult to fit a conventional drainfield and that a mound system would force a much smaller house. Robinson said the holding tank would allow residential use of the parcel.
Gary Schoen, Town of Union Chair, told the board the town favors the variance and that neighboring lakefront properties already use holding tanks. Several neighbors, including Mike and Sue Wolosek and Eric Fernelius, opposed the variance, raising concerns that frequent pumping would strain the private driveway and that allowing holding tanks for new dwellings would undermine the county’s public‑health protections.
R. Fields, Planning and Zoning Code Enforcement Specialist, presented the staff report recommending denial. Fields cited the Waupaca County Sanitary Ordinance (Chapter 35), saying the parcel’s shape and wetlands do not create a unique physical limitation, that alternative options (including mound systems) exist, and that holding tanks are restricted for new single-family dwellings because of documented mismanagement risks. L. Pagel, POWTS inspector, noted the county issued 10 holding-tank permits in 2019 and 8 in 2020 and discussed why holding tanks are limited.
After deliberation, D. Johnson moved to deny the variance and G. Marx seconded. The roll call vote was unanimous: P. Craig—yes; D. Johnson—yes; J. Fulcher—yes; G. Marx—yes; P. Leder—yes. The board’s written findings said alternative sanitary-system options were available and that granting the variance would harm the public interest by undercutting the ordinance’s intent to protect water and public health.
The board closed the hearing at 12:09 p.m. and directed staff to record the findings in the decision worksheet.
