Oneida County Board of Adjustment upholds county finding, disallows boathouse doors in Totzke appeal

The Oneida County Board of Adjustment on April 30 upheld the county's interpretation that doors installed on a boathouse at 7724 Wheeler Island Rd qualify as patio doors and must be disallowed, voting 4-1 after hearing testimony, reviewing construction materials and conducting an onsite inspection.

The appeal, filed as Appeal No. 25-009 by the Totzke Family Revocable Trust with attorney Shane VanderWaal as agent, challenged a county administrative direction requiring correction of the doors installed under zoning permit #2401268. The board opened the hearing at 11:15 a.m., swore witnesses and reviewed evidence including construction plans, a manufacturer printout for an Anderson Folding Outswing/Big Door product, a REI Engineering affidavit and a letter from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Builder Steve Madl described the door's structural system, including a track system, laminated veneer lumber headers and steel beams, saying the unit's weight is supported by the top header. Darin Pagel, Building Inspector and Zoning Administrator for the City of Merrill, testified that "when code does not provide a definition of a word, the use of dictionary definition is standard" and expressed the view that the specific Anderson product on site was not a patio door and was consistent with the submitted construction plans. The appellant submitted manufacturer materials and photographic examples to support that interpretation. Counsel for the county, Atty. Chad Lynch, argued the doors "push the limit" toward being patio doors and are inconsistent with the type of door the county permits for boathouses.

Planning and Zoning Director Karl Jennrich clarified to the board that the sole question for their decision was whether the installed doors should be considered patio doors under the county's interpretation and therefore allowable for a boathouse. After deliberation, Chair Guy Hansen moved, and Brad Herrold seconded, "to uphold the county's position that the doors installed meet the county's interpretation for use and appearance of a patio door and the doors be disallowed." The motion carried on a 4-1 vote (Viegut, Chronister, Herrold and Hansen in the majority; Verdoorn opposed).

The board recorded that an onsite inspection had been conducted earlier at approximately 9:30 a.m. at the property in the Town of Three Lakes and that Secretary Jeff Viegut observed that property boundaries and ordinary high water mark were not marked but found no erosion or other site conditions materially affecting the decision. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

The board's decision resolves only the narrow interpretation question recorded in the hearing; the transcript and materials reflect disagreement among experts and between county staff and the appellant's representatives about whether the installed unit fits the county's working definition of a patio door. Any next procedural steps (such as compliance actions or further appeals) were not specified in the hearing record.