Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waupaca County board denies Galloway variance to expand second story along Stratton Lake
Summary
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment voted 5–0 to deny a variance request by Jaquelyn and Carey Galloway to vertically expand a nonconforming dwelling within the highway right-of-way on Stratton Lake, citing lack of unique hardship and public safety/ordinance concerns.
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment unanimously denied a petition by Jaquelyn A. and Carey R. Galloway to vertically expand the second story of a nonconforming dwelling that encroaches on the highway right-of-way along State Road 22 in the Town of Dayton.
Attorney Thomas Stratton testified for the applicants and argued the petition met the three legal criteria for a variance: unique physical limitations, no harm to the public interest, and unnecessary hardship because portions of the second floor are not usable. A neighbor, Daniel Gingler, testified in support.
Planning and Zoning Code Enforcement Specialist Rebecca Fields presented the staff report and recommended denial. Fields told the board the structure “does not meet right of way setbacks and [is] already in the right of way of a Level I Hwy,” and said the vertical expansion sought is not allowed under the ordinance provision that permits rebuilding of nonconforming structures. Fields also argued similar lots around Stratton Lake reduce the claim of a unique physical limitation and said the owner has reasonable use of the property, making the hardship claim self-created.
Board members discussed the criteria. Chair P. Craig said she did not see how the property was unusable as it exists and described the claimed hardship as self-created. P. Leder and other members concluded the applicants had not met the ordinance standards. P. Leder moved to deny the variance; D. Johnson seconded. Roll call vote: P. Craig—yes; D. Johnson—yes; J. Fulcher—yes; G. Marx—yes; P. Leder—yes. The motion to deny carried 5–0.
The board entered findings on the decision: 1) Unique physical limitations: No; 2) Unnecessary hardship: No; 3) No harm to public interest if denied: Yes (granting would weaken zoning). The hearing was closed at 11:24 a.m.
Because the board denied the variance, the applicants are not eligible to expand vertically under the ordinance as requested; the minutes do not record any direction to staff for alternatives or further relief.
