Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waupaca County board grants after-the-fact setback variance for Johnson Road shed
Summary
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment granted an after-the-fact area variance for a shed on Johnson Road, voting 4–1 to approve the applicant’s request despite staff recommendations for denial based on setback violations and lack of unique hardship.
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment voted April 22, 2021, to grant an after-the-fact area variance for a shed on property along Johnson Road, approving the request 4–1.
Chair P. Craig opened the continuation hearing for Ryan J.R. Pingel, who testified by telephone that a contractor obtained the permit and he had believed construction complied with county requirements. Pingel told the board that “the shed would have to be torn down and moved, which would be very expensive,” and he said he did not believe the placement harmed the public interest.
Planning and zoning staff recommended denial. C. Bauer, Planning and Zoning Code Enforcement Specialist, told the board the structure does not meet right-of-way setback requirements and that no unique physical limitations exist on the roughly 9.69-acre parcel to justify an area variance. Bauer stated the hardship appeared to be self-created because the contractor made the error.
Board members questioned site plans and inspections. R. Brown displayed the submitted land-use permit site plan that indicated the shed was sited 76 feet from the right-of-way; a later survey showed the southwest corner of the built shed is 27.9 feet from the straight portion of the right-of-way. Staff clarified the roadway is public and that, while the shed meets the applicable road-center setback, it does not meet the right-of-way setback.
After deliberation, P. Leder moved to grant the variance and D. Johnson seconded. The roll call vote was P. Craig—yes; D. Johnson—yes; J. Fulcher—yes; G. Marx—no; P. Leder—yes. The board’s written findings cited the cul-de-sac location, a lack of safety/visibility concerns at the site, and a conclusion that moving the structure could create erosion hazards.
The board completed its decision-making worksheet and closed the hearing at 10:54 a.m. The variance was granted despite staff’s recommendation to deny based on setback noncompliance and the absence of a legally cognizable hardship.
The board’s action resolves the after-the-fact dispute for the shed; the minutes record the procedural and factual bases the board relied upon for approving the variance.
