Board of Adjustment finds no hardship, denies variance to allow holding tank for Rockland Dairy site

The Sheboygan County Board of Adjustment on April 15 denied a variance request (Case No. V-26-01-S) that would have allowed a holding tank to replace a failed private sewage system for a residence on parcel #59028426500 in the Town of Sherman. Chairperson Ed Harvey opened the public hearing and staff and the petitioner presented technical evidence before the board voted on the ordinance criteria.

Why it matters: Sheboygan County’s sanitary ordinance generally prohibits holding tanks for residences; staff said the county enforces that policy because holding tanks require frequent pumping and strict oversight, and the state recently revoked a pre‑treatment product that had previously enabled some alternative systems to function.

How the hearing unfolded: Howie Mitchell of Schwartz Septic, representing the petitioner, said tests of the household’s wastewater showed a ‘‘high strength of waste’’ with elevated oils and grease that, he testified, would shorten the life of a conventional mound system. ‘‘We did testing of the wastewater last year and found that it was a high strength of waste that is being produced from the household,’’ Mitchell said, arguing that a holding tank would preserve the site for a future mound if household usage changed.

Staff and board members questioned whether a grease interceptor or more frequent pumping could address the problem. Planning & Conservation staff member Kathryn Fabian told the board that counties differ on allowing holding tanks but that Sheboygan County ‘‘does not allow them for residences because they are a hassle,’’ noting the administrative burden and potential for illegal discharges. Fabian also said the state revoked a pretreatment product about two years ago that had previously been used to help some mound systems function in high-strength conditions.

Deliberation and vote: The board deliberated on the three variance criteria in Sanitary Ordinance §70.08(6). Members debated whether the problem was a physical condition of the property or the occupants’ lifestyle and whether that constituted an ‘‘unnecessary hardship.’’ The board took roll-call votes on the criteria. On the question of whether an unnecessary hardship exists, the roll call was: Kenneth Sonntag — No; Ed Harvey — Yes; Sarah DeZwarte — No; Pete Scheuerman — No; Charles Born — No. Attorney Kelly Del Ponte concluded that, based on that vote, the board found no unnecessary hardship and therefore the variance could not be granted. Subsequent votes on special-property conditions and harm to the public interest likewise did not support granting the variance.

Conditions discussed: Fabian read conditions that staff said could accompany a variance if one were granted: a recorded Holding Tank Agreement acknowledging pumping responsibilities; a signed servicing contract with the tank pumper; a recorded reservation protecting the soil-evaluation area so a mound system could be installed in the future; and language voiding the variance for unauthorized discharges or rerouting plumbing.

What the board said and next steps: Board members expressed differing views about whether lifestyle-related waste is a self-imposed condition versus a legitimate hardship. Some members said grease traps and more frequent pumping might prolong a mound’s life; staff and the petitioner said those measures may not solve high-strength-waste issues. After its votes, the board concluded the variance could not be granted under current county ordinance and moved on to other business.

The board closed the hearing, opened deliberations, and adjourned at 2:29 p.m.