Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oneida County Board of Adjustment denies variance for deck roof at Minocqua lakefront property
Summary
The Oneida County Board of Adjustment on June 18 denied a variance request from Thomas and Barbara Grala to add a roof over a deck at 13345 White Elk Lane, finding the proposed expansion would encroach closer to the ordinary high water mark than permitted; the motion to deny passed 4–1.
The Oneida County Board of Adjustment denied a variance request from property owners Thomas and Barbara Grala to add a roof over an existing deck at 13345 White Elk Lane in the Town of Minocqua. The hearing and on-site inspection, held June 18, established the closest point of the existing house to the ordinary high water mark measured about 80 feet, while the proposed roof addition would reach about 63 feet toward the water. The board voted to deny the variance by motion of Dan Chronister, seconded by Jeff Verdoorn; the recorded vote was Verdoorn yes, Viegut yes, Chronister yes, Pazdernik no, Hansen yes.
Chair Guy Hansen explained the legal standard the board applied: "the burden of proof is on the appellant to meet each of the three statutory variance criteria: unique physical limitations or special conditions of the property; no harm to public interests; and unnecessary hardship." Appellants Thomas and Barbara Grala said the roughly 10-foot extension would provide shaded waterfront access because Barbara Grala has an eye condition and that neighbors had not objected. Planning and Zoning Assistant Director Todd Troskey testified the department denied the permit because the ordinance treats any expansion closer to the ordinary high water mark than the house eave as impermissible. Troskey also stated that "the permit was not submitted based on any ADA issue and that even if it were, he believed the added deck roof expansion toward the water would still have been denied."
During deliberations the board considered alternatives raised during testimony, including using a retractable awning. After discussion the board found the appellants had not met the statutory criteria for a variance and voted to deny the permit. The minutes note that staff previously explained the process for seeking judicial review: Karl Jennrich outlined the general procedure for Petition for Writ of Certiorari filings that appeal Board of Adjustment decisions. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m.
