Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Waupaca County board denies shoreland setback variance for Peotter deck
Loading...
Summary
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment on July 16 denied a variance request from Ted R. and Joanne M. Peotter to retain a side deck within the shoreland/100-year floodplain, finding the application did not meet the three legal variance criteria; the board set a six-month window to correct the violation.
The Waupaca County Board of Adjustment unanimously denied a shoreland variance July 16 for Ted R. and Joanne M. Peotter of N11344 County Road P after finding the application failed to meet statutory criteria.
The Peotters testified that they built a small deck on the side of their cottage to provide safer access and maintenance during frequent spring flooding, saying the deck sits above the 100-year floodplain. “The floodwaters seem to be rising every year,” one applicant said, and the deck was described as necessary to maintain gutters and the roof.
Planning and Zoning staff recommended denial. Rebecca Fields read the three-part legal test for a variance—unique physical limitations, no harm to the public interest and unnecessary hardship—and concluded the Peotters had not satisfied those requirements. Staff also explained the differences between floodplain and shoreland allowances and noted mitigation requirements for nonconforming lateral expansions.
During deliberations, board members said many other sites in the county have similar shoreline conditions and that a deck is not essential to use of the dwelling. Chair P. Craig and other members said the record did not show the required unique hardship. The board moved to deny the petition and imposed a six-month timeframe for the property owners to correct the nonconforming work. The roll-call vote was P. Craig—yes; J. Biddison—yes; J. Fulcher—yes; P. Leder—yes; D. Johnson—yes.
The board completed its decision-making worksheet, noting that (1) other sites share the same physical circumstances, (2) the dwelling remains usable without the deck, and (3) approving the variance would weaken the purpose of the Shoreland Protection Ordinance. The hearing record includes testimony from a family witness who said local river flooding increased after dams were removed in the 1980s; staff did not find that assertion sufficient to meet the statutory variance criteria.
The hearing was closed at 10:36 a.m.; the board moved on to a second variance petition later in the session.