Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Board approves Manowske variance for retaining wall and patio to address erosion

Waupaca County Board of Adjustment · March 1, 2026

Loading...

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

Despite a staff recommendation to deny, the Waupaca County Board of Adjustment unanimously approved a variance July 16 for Michael P. and Margaret M. Manowske to retain a patio and retaining wall that encroached on the shoreland setback, citing steep slope and erosion risk.

The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment voted unanimously July 16 to approve a variance for Michael P. and Margaret M. Manowske of N8919 County Road J to retain a patio and retaining wall that do not meet the shoreland Ordinary High Water Mark setback.

The Manowskes testified the retaining wall and patio were installed after fill associated with a pole shed created a steep slope and increased erosion risk. Michael Manowske said the retaining wall was suggested by the contractor and landscaper; he said he assumed the landscaper would obtain required permits but later learned permits had not been secured.

Planning and Zoning staff, represented by Jeff Henneman, recommended denial, saying the office had inspected the site several times to verify setbacks and that multiple erosion-control options exist. The applicants disputed that the county adequately advised them about the retaining wall; Jason Snyder, the county Zoning Administrator, said the land use permit application included permission for staff inspection.

Board members focused on the steep slope and the potential for continued erosion if the retaining wall were removed. P. Leder moved to approve the variance, D. Johnson seconded, and the board recorded a unanimous roll-call vote: P. Craig—yes; D. Johnson—yes; J. Fulcher—yes; J. Biddison—yes; P. Leder—yes.

In its findings the board said there was a limited building envelope because of shoreland and highway setbacks, that removing the retaining wall could create erosion problems (an unnecessary hardship), and that preventing erosion serves the public interest. The hearing closed at 11:46 a.m.; the meeting adjourned at 11:48 a.m.