Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Variance Appeal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies variance for lakeshore deck roof at 13345 White Elk Lane

Oneida County Board of Adjustment · June 18, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Oneida County Board of Adjustment voted 4-1 on June 18 to deny a variance that would have allowed a roof extension closer to the ordinary high water mark than the existing eave. The owners said the roof would provide shade for a family member with an eye condition.

The Oneida County Board of Adjustment denied a request to expand a roof over a lakeside deck at 13345 White Elk Lane in the Town of Minocqua, voting 4-1 during its June 18 meeting.

Thomas Grala, the property owner, said the work is to "fix up the existing deck and want to install a deck roof as Barb has an eye condition and wants a more shaded area to enjoy the waterfront." He and his wife, Barbara Grala, told the board they had spoken with neighbors who expressed no objection to the addition and that they were asking for an approximately 10-foot extension toward the water.

Todd Troskey, Assistant Director of the Oneida County Planning and Zoning Department, told the board that "the department’s decision for denial was based on the ordinance that 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 explained that the ordinance is measured from the closest point of the existing structure (the eave) and that the department did not treat the application as an ADA accommodation.

At the on-site inspection earlier the board recorded measurements: Secretary Jeff Viegut reported the distance from the house to the ordinary high water mark was approximately 80 feet and that the proposed roof addition would be approximately 63 feet from the ordinary high water mark. After closing the public portion of the hearing, the board deliberated on the three statutory variance criteria and then voted.

Motion by Dan Chronister, second by Jeff Verdoorn, to deny the permit variance application carried with the following recorded votes: Jeff Verdoorn: yes; Jeff Viegut: yes; Dan Chronister: yes; Mike Pazdernik: no; Guy Hansen: yes. The chair adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m. The board had earlier been briefed by staff on the appeals process, including the availability of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to challenge Board decisions.