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 variance for detached garage at Stratton Lake property
Summary
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment unanimously denied Jacquelyn and Carey Galloway’s request to build a detached garage closer than required shoreland and highway setbacks, concluding the three legal variance criteria were not met.
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment voted unanimously July 25 to deny a variance that would have allowed Jacquelyn and Carey Galloway to build a detached garage closer than required shoreland and highway setbacks at their Stratton Lake property.
The applicants, Jacquelyn and Carey Galloway, told the board they planned to convert the property to a full-time residence and said the garage was needed to protect vehicles from winter conditions and to make it safer to leave the driveway. “They want protection for their vehicles during the winter months,” Jacquelyn Galloway said during the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning staff, represented at the hearing by Rebecca Fields, recommended denial, saying the legal criteria for a variance were not met. Jason Snyder, the county’s zoning administrator, read letters from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the Department of Natural Resources that were entered into the record.
During deliberations, Chair P. Craig said the hardship described by the applicants was self-created and emphasized the ordinance’s purpose of protecting lakes and highway safety. “I don’t see how we can make a decision to grant this variance because they don’t meet the three criteria,” Chair P. Craig said.
The board discussed overlapping shoreland and highway setbacks and whether removing an existing plastic shed and walk would address impervious surface overages; staff said removing those items could reduce impervious coverage. Board members also noted the lot’s small size was common among lake lots and did not establish the unique physical limitation required for a variance.
J. Fulcher moved and D. Johnson seconded a motion to deny the variance. The motion carried on a roll-call vote: P. Craig—yes; A. Richardson—yes; J. Fulcher—yes; J. Biddison—yes; D. Johnson—yes. The board completed a findings worksheet concluding that (1) the property did not have unique physical limitations, (2) there was no unnecessary hardship because the lot was used as a residence, and (3) granting the variance would harm the public interest by placing structures in setback areas meant to protect the water and highway.
The hearing was closed at 10:25 a.m.
