Oneida County Board of Adjustment denies variance for lakeside roof addition in Minocqua

The Oneida County Board of Adjustment on June 18, 2026, denied a homeowner’s request for a variance to add a roof over a deck that would extend toward the lake at 13345 White Elk Lane in the Town of Minocqua.

The board met in Committee Room #2 at the Oneida County Courthouse and, after an on-site inspection and public hearing, voted 4–1 to deny the application. Chair Guy Hansen said the hearing followed Wisconsin’s open meetings requirements and that the appellant bore the burden of proving each of the three statutory variance criteria: unique physical conditions, no harm to public interests, and unnecessary hardship.

Property owner Thomas Grala testified the couple wants to add roughly a 10-foot roof extension to shade the deck because his wife, Barbara Grala, “has an eye condition and wants a more shaded area to enjoy the waterfront,” and said neighbors had raised no objections. The board conducted an on-site inspection at about 10 a.m.; Secretary Jeff Viegut reported the measured distance from the house to the ordinary high water mark was approximately 80 feet and that the proposed roof addition’s closest point to the water was approximately 63 feet.

County planning staff explained the basis for the permit denial. Todd Troskey of the Planning and Zoning Department testified the department denied the permit under the county ordinance because “no portion of the expansion of the existing principal structure may be any closer to the ordinary high water mark than the closest point of the existing principal structure.” He said the ordinance’s measurement point is the eave of the existing structure, and that any expansion toward the water that would be closer than the eave formed the basis for the denial. Troskey added the permit was not submitted on ADA grounds and that he believed the expansion would have been denied even if an ADA claim had been asserted.

Board members discussed whether a medical eye condition could justify unnecessary hardship and asked whether less-permanent alternatives—such as a retractable awning—had been considered. After deliberation, Board member Dan Chronister moved to deny the variance; Jeff Verdoorn seconded. The vote to deny the permit variance application carried 4–1: Verdoorn yes, Viegut yes, Chronister yes, Pazdernik no, Hansen yes.

The denial means the county’s earlier permit decision stands. Karl Jennrich had earlier briefed the board on the process for Petition for Writ of Certiorari filings that appeal Board of Adjustment decisions, noting appellants may pursue judicial review under that procedure.

The board adjourned at 1:25 p.m.