Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brown County BZA approves rear-setback variance for Wagner, denies side-setback and requires guttering
Summary
The Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a rear-setback variance for Todd Wagner’s lakeside roof but denied a requested side-setback variance, conditioning approval on installation of guttering to prevent runoff onto a neighboring property.
The Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals on July 29 approved a variance allowing Todd and Jill Wagner to locate a roofed cover 1 foot from the rear property line but denied their request to place it 1 foot from the side property line. The board attached a condition requiring the petitioner to install guttering that prevents runoff onto the neighboring Hills' property.
At the hearing, staff described the request as a variance from a 25-foot rear setback and a 3-foot side setback under the Brown County Zoning Ordinance (sections 3.6, 4.6b and 4.7a). Petitioner Todd Wagner told the board the decorative concrete seawall had been eroding since the 1950s and said the planned roof would be a minor visual change: "The roof itself is only gonna be 6 inches in height," he said, adding the structure uses 6-inch steel posts and is intended to make the lakeside grilling area usable in rain.
Neighbors raised concerns about drainage and runoff. Nancy Hill, speaking for herself and her family, said the roof’s slope in the current design would channel water toward their decking: "The water runs off over towards our side," she said, and urged the board to require that runoff not flow onto their property. Wagner responded that the roof would include guttering routed toward the lake "like many of the dock covers" and offered to modify the design if needed.
Board members split over the side-setback request. One member said he could "never see a circumstance" approving a side setback under 3 feet for an accessory building, while others noted examples of reduced setbacks in the conservancy district. The board voted to approve only the rear-setback variance, deny the side-setback variance, and require a runoff-prevention guttering solution as a condition of approval. A roll-call vote recorded all present members voting in favor of that motion.
The board’s decision requires the petitioners to implement the guttering condition before any final permits proceed; staff offered to provide contact information for follow-up. The petitioners were advised to coordinate with county staff if issues arise during implementation.
