Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Waupaca County Board denies variance to alter Clinton property roof

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

On Aug. 15, 2019, the Waupaca County Board of Adjustment unanimously denied a petition by the James F. & Susan C. Clinton Revocable Trust to replace a flat roof with a pitched roof on a building within highway setback and visual-clearance areas in the Town of Bear Creek.

The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment unanimously denied a variance request Aug. 15 for a roof alteration at the James F. & Susan C. Clinton Revocable Trust property in the Town of Bear Creek.

James Clinton, representing the trust, testified the proposal would replace an existing flat roof with a pitched roof and said the change would not affect visibility at the nearby intersection. Clinton also said he would remove a fireworks sign that he acknowledged obstructed sight lines. “Wisconsin is no place for a flat roof,” he said, describing repeated maintenance burdens.

Planning and Zoning staff, represented by Candace Bauer, recommended denial, concluding the application did not meet the legal criteria for a variance. The board discussed the three statutory findings—unique physical limitations, unnecessary hardship and no harm to the public interest—and determined the property could be used as it currently exists and that a flat roof could be replaced without granting a variance.

J. Fulcher moved to deny the variance and A. Richardson seconded. The roll call vote was unanimous: P. Craig—yes; A. Richardson—yes; J. Fulcher—yes; P. Leder—yes; D. Johnson—yes. Chair P. Craig closed the hearing at 10:45 a.m.

The board completed its decision-making worksheet, recording findings that the building could be used in its present form (no unique physical limitation sufficient to warrant a variance), that an allowable retail use remained under current conditions (no unnecessary hardship), and that existing regulations advance public safety (no-harm finding). The board then moved to the next agenda item.