Board of Adjustment Meeting Agenda Packet (PDF)

Notice in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act: 1) Any person needing assistance to participate in this meeting should contact the Office of the County Clerk at (920) 746-2200. Notification 72 hours prior to a meeting will enable the County to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 2) Door County is committed to making its electronic and information technology (e.g., website and contents) accessible for all persons. If you encounter difficulty accessing the posted materials for this meeting, located on-line at https://www.co.door.wi.gov/AgendaCenter under the committee name, or have trouble accessing the virtual meeting, please call (920) 746-2323, or send a FAX to (920) 746-2387, or send an e-mail to Lriemer@co.door.wi.us so that we may determine how to best assist you. AGENDA 1.0 Call to order and declaration of quorum 2.0 Vote for Chairperson 3.0 Vote for Vice-Chairperson 4.0 Discuss and arrive at a decision on Petition(s) for Grant of Variance 4.1 Betty Wall; ordinary high-water mark setback; Sevastapol; PIN 0220328282734E (4120 Glidden Dr.) 5.0 Final disposition of the following case(s) considered by the Board of Adjustment on July 14, 2026. 5.1 Andy Gill; rear yard setback; Baileys Harbor; PIN 0020317302842C (8288 County Highway Q) 5.2 Karen Zimmer; ordinary high-water mark setback; PIN 0180201322812L (1136 Garrett Bay Rd.) 6.0 Read and act on minutes of July 14, 2026, meeting 7.0 Future meeting schedule: • August 11th: Business meeting • August 25th: Public hearing • September 8th: If necessary; possible public hearing 8.0 Vouchers 9.0 Adjournment Deviation from order shown may occur. Bob Ryan, Chair Door County Board of Adjustment c/o Door County Land Use Services Dept. Door County Government Center 421 Nebraska St. Sturgeon Bay, WI 54235 Notice of Public Meeting Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:30 p.m. DOOR COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Door County Government Center Peninsula Room (C121, 1st floor) 421 Nebraska Street, Sturgeon Bay, WI USE THE 4TH STREET ENTRANCE, ACROSS FROM THE LIBRARY. Applicants and others who wish to speak must attend in person. Members of the public who wish to simply monitor/observe the hearings and meeting may attend in person or do so remotely by using the link below, or via the Zoom smartphone app, or by calling (312) 626-6799. Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85191002003?pwd=tHd VTZGUM1Ham3zLjkk80HyQ4ChKdR.1 Zoom ID: 851 9100 2003 Passcode: 320848 1 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE DOOR COUNTY, WI BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOOR COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 421 NEBRASKA ST. STURGEON BAY, WI 54235 A public hearing held by the Door County Board of Adjustment (BOA) on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, will be in the Door County Government Center Peninsula Room (C121, 1st Floor). Use the 4th Street entrance, across from the library. Applicants and others who wish to offer oral testimony must attend in person. Members of the public who wish to monitor/observe the meeting may attend in person or do so remotely by using the link below, or via the Zoom smartphone app, or by calling (312) 626-6799. Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85191002003?pwd=tHdVTZGUM1Ham3zLjkk80HyQ4ChKdR.1 Webinar ID: 851 9100 2003 Passcode: 320848 The hearing will begin at 4:30 p.m. to consider the following application(s) for a variance, as specified in the Door County zoning ordinance(s): TOWN OF SEVASTOPOL Betty Wall is requesting a variance from Section IV.B.2.b of the Door County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance which requires accessory structures to be located at least 75’ from the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM).The applicant proposes to construct an accessory structure (sauna) to be located as close as 63’ from the OHWM. Written testimony will be accepted on 8 1/2" x 11" paper, or by email to LUSdepartment@co.door.wi.gov, and must be received 48 hours prior to the day of the hearing. Anonymous correspondence will not be accepted. Written testimony is available for inspection upon request. Written testimony is entered into hearing records, but is not read aloud. Please Note: Correspondence or testimony submitted for town-level proceedings does NOT get forwarded to the county. All application materials may be viewed on-line approximately four business days before the hearing at: https://www.co.door.wi.gov/AgendaCenter . Additional materials may be posted up until 4:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. The list of names to whom this notice was sent by regular mail is available upon request. Bob Ryan, Chairperson Board of Adjustment c/o Door County Land Use Services Dept. Door County Gov’t. Center 421 Nebraska St., Sturgeon Bay, WI 54235 Phone: (920) 746-2323 | FAX: (920) 746-2387 Publication Dates: July 10, 2026, & July 17, 2026 2 DOOR COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION-MAKING WORKSHEET APPLICANTS’ NAMES: PROPERTY ADDRESSES / PIN: HEARING DATE: Description of variance requested: To grant an area variance, all three of the standards enumerated below must be met. In addressing each standard, express the reasons for the decision, i.e., why the facts did or did not satisfy the standards, the weight and credibility of the evidence presented (or lack thereof), and any other relevant considerations. 1. UNIQUE PHYSICAL PROPERTY LIMITATIONS. Are there unique physical property limitations such as steep slopes, wetlands, or parcel shape that prevent compliance with the ordinance? The circumstances of an applicant (growing family, need for a larger garage, etc.) are not factors in deciding variances. Property limitations that prevent ordinance compliance and are common to a number of properties should be addressed by amending the ordinance. The variance is not warranted if the physical character of the property allows a landowner to develop or build in compliance with the zoning ordinance. In order for a variance to satisfy the unique physical property limitation test, the question below must be answered affirmatively. Does this property contain unique physical property limitations (e.g., wetland presence, parcel shape, steep slope, etc.) that would prevent compliance with the ordinance? YES NO EXPLAIN: 2. UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. Unnecessary hardship exists when a literal enforcement of the ordinance would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or when conformity with ordinance standards would be unnecessarily burdensome. Considerations:  Unnecessary hardship should be determined in light of the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance in question, as well as any statute or administrative rule upon which the ordinance is based. (See page 4.) The facts of the case should be analyzed in light of these purposes. Only after considering the purpose(s) of the statute and/or ordinance, and the nature of the specific restriction(s) at issue, may a decision be made as to whether or not failure to grant a variance will cause an unnecessary hardship.  Unnecessary hardship may arise due to a unique pro perty limitation of a parcel (see #1, above). A variance is not warranted if the physical character of the property allows a landowner to develop or build in compliance with the zoning ordinance.  Unnecessary hardship does not include consideratio ns personal to the property owner (e.g., personal preference, desire to maximizing the economic value of the property, or financial hardship caused by ordinance compliance). 3  Any self-created hardship, and/or any hardship tha t existed irrespective of the zoning ordinance in question are not proper grounds upon which to grant a variance.  Alternatives to a variance (e.g., conditional use permit or restrictive covenant) may, as neither runs with the land, be preferable to accommodate a disability of the owner or owner’s dependent. In order for a variance to satisfy the unnecessary hardship test, one of the questions below (A or B) must be answered affirmatively. A. Does denial of the variance -- i.e., requiring c ompliance with the strict letter of the ordinance provision(s) in question (e.g., setbacks, height limitations, etc.) -- unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose? YES NO EXPLAIN: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________. OR B. Is conformity with the regulation(s) unnecessari ly burdensome? YES NO EXPLAIN: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________. 3. PUBLIC INTEREST/SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINAN CE. A variance may not be granted which results in harm to public interests, nor thwarts the spirit and intent of the ordinance. In applying this test, the board should review the purpose statements of the ordinance (and any statute or administrative rule upon which the ordinance is based) in order to identify public interests. (See page 4.) The short-term and long-term impacts of the proposal and the cumulative impacts of similar projects on the interests of the neighbors, the community, and even the state, should be considered. Review should focus on the general public interest, rather than just the narrow interests or impacts on neighbors, patrons, or residents in the vicinity of the project. Cumulative effects are a proper consideration. For instance, in the context of shoreland zoning, the general availability of variances permitting the horizontal expansion of structures so close to the water's edge may have the cumulative effect of enclosing our lakes within a wall of impermeable surfaces to the exclusion of vegetation and impairing the ecological functions of the shoreland buffer. A variance is not a popularity contest. The mere fact of public support or opposition is not, in and of itself, determinative of whether or not a variance is contrary to the public interest. The board may grant only the minimum variance needed, i.e., the minimum variance necessary to relieve the unnecessary hardship. For instance, if the request is for a variance of 30 feet from the minimum setback, and a finding is made that a 10-foot setback reduction would allow the petitioner to use the property for a permitted purpose, then only a 10-foot setback reduction may be authorized. Distinguish between hardships that are unnecessary in light of the unique conditions of the property and the purpose of the zoning ordinance from hardships that are inconsequential or not unique or because a variance would unduly undermine the purpose of the ordinance or the public interest. In order for a variance to satisfy the public interest test, the question below must be answered negatively. 4 Does the granting of the variance result in harm to the public interest? YES NO EXPLAIN: Has the applicant seeking a variance demonstrated that each of the three standards has been satisfied in this case? YES NO . If yes, then substantial justice will be done by granting the variance. The privileges granted by this decision shall become void after one year unless the property owner obtains the appropriate zoning permits within such time. Dated this: 5 Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Purpose “1.04 Purpose. The purposes of this Ordinance include: (1) to promote the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare; (2) to encourage planned and orderly land use development; (3) to protect property values and the property tax base; (4) to permit the careful planning and efficient maintenance of highway systems; (5) to ensure adequate highway, health, educational, and recreational facilities; (6) to recognize the needs of agriculture, forestry, industry, and business in future growth; (7) to encourage uses of land and other natural resources which are in accordance with their character and adaptability; (8) to provide adequate light and air; (9) to encourage the protection of groundwater resources; (10) to preserve wetlands; (11) to conserve soil, water, and forest resources; (12) to protect the beauty and amenities of landsca pe and man-made developments; (13) to provide healthy surroundings for family lif e; and (14) to promote the efficient and economical use of public funds.” Examples as to how to use the above in conjunction with analysis of a variance request: When considering a variance request to relax a required yard setback, county zoning ordinance purposes (2), (3), (7), (8), (12) and (13) are likely relevant to consider. Door County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance Purpose “This ordinance was enacted: a. To assure compliance with the objectives of the shoreland zoning enabling statutes, i.e., §§ 59.692 and 281.31, Wis. Stats., and to parallel as closely as possible the regulatory provisions of Ch. NR 115, Wis. Adm. Code. b. To promote the public health, safety, convenienc e, and general welfare. c. To promote and protect the public trust in navig able waters. d. To limit the direct and cumulative impacts of sh oreland development on water quality; near−shore aquatic, wetland, and upland wildlife habitat; and natural scenic beauty. e. To effect the purposes of § 281.31, Wis. Stats., to wit: 1) For the efficient use, conservation, development , and protection of the state’s and county’s water resources. 2) Further the maintenance of safe and healthful co nditions by, among other means, the following: a) Limiting structures to those areas where soil an d geological conditions will provide a safe foundation; b) Establishing minimum lot sizes to provide adequa te area for private on-site waste treatment systems; c) Controlling filling and grading to prevent soil erosion problems; and d) Limiting impervious surfaces to control runoff w hich carries pollutants. 3) Prevent and control water pollution. 4) Protect spawning grounds, fish, and aquatic life by, among other means, the following: a) Preserving wetlands and other fish and aquatic h abitat. b) Regulating pollution sources. c) Controlling shoreline alterations, dredging, and lagooning. 5) Control building sites, placement of structures, and land uses and reserve shore cover and natural beauty by, among other means, the following: a) Prohibiting certain uses detrimental to the shor eland-wetlands. b) Setting minimum lot sizes and widths. c) Setting minimum building setbacks from waterways . d) Setting the maximum height of near-shore structu res. 6) Preserve and restore shoreland vegetation and na tural scenic beauty by, among other means, the following: a) Restricting the removal of natural shoreland cov er. 6 b) Preventing shoreline encroachment by structures. c) Controlling shoreland excavation and other earth moving activities. d) Regulating the use and placement of boathouses a nd other structures. f. To control use of shorelands to afford the protection of water quality.” Examples as to how to use the above in conjunction with analysis of a variance request: When considering a variance request to relax the required ordinary high water mark setback, county shoreland zoning ordinance purpose and intent sections c., d., e., and f. are likely relevant to consider. Door County Floodplain Zoning Ordinance Purpose “1.3 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE This ordinance is intended to regulate floodplain development to: (1) Protect life, health and property; (2) Minimize expenditures of public funds for flood control projects; (3) Minimize rescue and relief efforts undertaken at the expense of the taxpayers; (4) Minimize business interruptions and other economic disruptions; (5) Minimize damage to public facilities in the floodplain; (6) Minimize the occurrence of future flood blight areas in the floodplain; (7) Discourage the victimization of unwary land and homebuyers; (8) Prevent increases in flood heights that could increase flood damage and result in conflicts between property owners; and (9) Discourage development in a floodplain if there is any practicable alternative to locate the activity, use or structure outside of the floodplain.” Door County Floodplain Zoning Ordinance Variance Criteria, Section 7.3(4), Variance (a) The Board may, upon appeal, grant a variance from the standards of this Ordinance if an applicant convincingly demonstrates that: 1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause unnecessary hardship; 2. The hardship is due to adoption of the floodplai n ordinance and unique property conditions, not common to adjacent lots or premises. In such case the ordinance or map must be amended; 3. The variance is not contrary to the public inter est; and 4. The variance is consistent with the purpose of t his Ordinance in s. 1.3. (b) In addition to the criteria in subd. (a), to qualify for a variance under FEMA regulations, the following criteria must be met: 1. The variance shall not cause any increase in the regional flood elevation; 2. Variances can only be granted for lots that are less than one-half acre and are contiguous to existing structures constructed below the RFE; and 3. Variances shall only be granted upon a showing o f good and sufficient cause, shall be the minimum relief necessary, shall not cause increased risks to public safety or nuisances, shall not increase costs for rescue and relief efforts and shall not be contrary to the purpose of the ordinance. (c) A variance shall not: 1. Grant, extend or increase any use prohibited in the zoning district; 2. Be granted for a hardship based solely on an eco nomic gain or loss; 3. Be granted for a hardship which is self-created. 4. Damage the rights or property values of other pe rsons in the area; 5. Allow actions without the amendments to this Ord inance or map(s) required in s. 8.0, Amendments; and 6. Allow any alteration of an historic structure, i ncluding its use, which would preclude its continued designation as an historic structure. (d) When a floodplain variance is granted, the Board shall notify the applicant in writing that it may increase risks to life and property and flood insurance premiums could increase up to $25.00 per $100.00 of coverage. A copy shall be maintained with the variance record. 7 Petition for Grant of Variance STAFF REPORT Applicant Information Property Owner and applicant: Betty Wall & Clifford Wall Parcel Number & Address: 022-03-28282734E (4120 Glidden Dr) Request: Betty Wall is requesting a variance from Section IV.B.2.b of the Door County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance which requires accessory structures to be located at least 75’ from the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). The applicant proposes to construct an accessory structure (sauna) to be located as close as 63’ from the OHWM. Zoning Information Current parcel description and zoning district: Parcel Description: The subject lot contains approximately 1.02 acres with approximately 193 ft. of road frontage along Glidden Drive and 190’ of shore frontage along Lake Michigan. Zoning and Uses: The subject lot is located in Single Family Residential-20,000 (SF-20) zoning district and is subject to shoreland zoning as it is located within 1000 ft. of Lake Michigan. Surrounding Area: There are lots to the east and west zoned as SF-20 that contain single family residences. There are larger lots to the north and west zoned Natural Area (NA) and Wetland (W) that contains Goldenrod/ Fischer Creek. Background Information: • 2000: A variance was granted to reconstruct existing decks within the water setback. Purpose & Intent of Shoreland Zoning Ordinance: • To promote public health, safety, convenience, & general welfare. • To promote & protect the public trust in navigable waters. • To limit the direct & cumulative impacts of shoreland development on water quality, near−shore aquatic, wetland, and upland wildlife habitat, and natural scenic beauty. • To control use of shorelands to afford the protection of water quality. • To prevent and control water pollution, and protect spawning grounds, fish, and aquatic life by: o Preventing shoreline encroachment by structures. o Controlling excavation/earth moving activities to prevent soil erosion. o Preserving wetlands and other fish and aquatic habitat. o Restricting the removal of natural shoreland cover. o Limiting impervious surfaces to control runoff which carries pollutants. o Limiting structures to those areas where soil and geological conditions will provide a safe foundation. 8 Other Considerations: Reasonable Use of the Property (without a Variance): • The lot and existing residence building may continue to be used for single family residence purposes. • There is buildable area available for the construction of an accessory structure. Cumulative Zoning Effects (with a Variance): • Increased hard surfaces (i.e., retaining wall) near a navigable waterway. Alternatives to a Variance: • The accessory structure may be built on pilings in compliance side yard and water setbacks. 9 Town Level Lakes Named Streams Navigable Stream County Trunk Highway State Trunk Highway Roads County Private State Town Parcel Gap Overlap Parcel Boundaries Municipality Lake Michigan 6/23/2026 0 1 20.5 mi 0 1.5 30.75 km 1:93,892 10 Aerial of Neighborhood Named Streams Navigable Stream County Trunk Highway Roads County Private Town ROW Easements Easement Parcel Parcel Boundaries 6/22/2026 0 0.2 0.40.1 mi 0 0.3 0.60.15 km 1:16,863 11 Zoning Map Named Streams Navigable Stream County Trunk Highway Roads County Private Town ROW Easements Easement Parcel Parcel Boundaries Comprehensive Zoning Single Family - 20,000 Natural Area Wetland 6/22/2026 0 0.2 0.40.1 mi 0 0.3 0.60.15 km 1:16,863 12 Aerial Close-Up County Trunk Highway Roads County ROW Parcel Parcel Boundaries 6/22/2026 0 0.01 0.030.01 mi 0 0.03 0.050.01 km 1:1,311 13 Aerial with Contours Calvin Lawrence, Dennis Weise, Nina Rihn Address 1 Foot Contours (2018) Lake Class Areas County Trunk Highway Roads County ROW Parcel Parcel Boundaries 6/22/2026 0 0.01 0.020 mi 0 0.01 0.030.01 km 1:787 14 15 Application Materials Submitted 16 17 PETITION A variance is a relaxation of a standard in a land use ordinance. Variances are decided by the zoning board of adjustment. The zoning board is a quasi-judicial body because it functions almost like a court. The board’s job is not to compromise ordinance provisions for a property owner’s convenience but to apply legal criteria provided in state laws, court decisions and the local ordinance to a specific fact situation. Variances are meant to be an infrequent remedy where an ordinance imposes a unique and substantial burden. PETITION: (I) (We) Full name(s): Clifford and Betty Wall Propose to: Place a non-utility 7x14 foot accessory structure “63 feet” from the ordinary high-water mark. In April 2026, the County originally approved the Shoreland Zoning Permit, but upon review in May 2026, they determined that the proposed structure was not 75 feet from the ordinary high-water mark and revoked the permit. The existing use of structure or land in question is: The current location has a broken-down fenced area that was installed by a previous owner. It aligns with the existing primary structure. Prior to the accessory structure being placed on the location, the existing fenced area will be removed and the area will be leveled with a gravel pad for the structure to sit upon. AUTHORIZATION FOR INSPECTION: I hereby authorize the Zoning Administrator to enter upon the premises for which this petition is made at any reasonable time for all purposes of inspection related to this petition. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that all of the above statements and attachments submitted hereto are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER/AGENT: DATE: 18 Please provide complete responses regarding a), b), and c) below. Attach additional pages if necessary. To qualify for a variance, the applicant must demonstrate that their request/situation meets the following three requirements: a.) UNIQUE PROPERTY LIMITATIONS Unique physical limitations of the property such as steep slopes or wetlands that are not generally shared by other properties must prevent compliance with ordinance requirements. The circumstances of an applicant (growing family, need for a larger garage, etc.) are not factors in deciding variances. Nearby ordinance violations, prior variances or lack of objections from neighbors do not provide a basis for granting a variance. Unique features of this property prevent compliance with the terms of the ordinance, including: Prior to selecting the proposed site, multiple locations on the property were evaluated for the structure placement. Without causing substantially greater environmental harm, the physical characteristics of this property make compliance with the 75-foot setback requirement impossible. These limitations are not shared generally with other properties and are not the result of any action by us, the current owners. The property contains the following physical constraints that prevent compliant placement: Topography and Grade: The property was originally developed in the early 1960s. It features sand ridges, a dune and a steep grade in areas away from the house and proposed location. These slopes extend across the property. Any structure placed in those areas would require installation of large retaining walls, excavation of undisturbed land, significant slope disturbance and the removal of existing and established trees and other vegetation. All of this would create greater environmental impact than the proposed location, as well disrupt the natural beauty of the parcel. Well and Septic System: The property’s well is located between the driveway and the house on the left side of the yard (when looking toward the shore). The septic holding tank and drain field are situated on the roadside of the property, between front door and basement door in the grassy and sloped area next to the driveway. The minimum setback requirements of 10 feet for a well and 25 feet of a septic holding tank eliminate many placement areas between the house and the road. Proposed Location: The proposed site at currently 63 feet from the ordinary high-water mark sits within an area that is already disturbed. A deteriorated fenced enclosure installed by a previous owner currently occupies the site. This means that the proposed site is the least environmentally sensitive available location on the property. The proposed location is also more level than other areas, minimizing the need to substantially alter the existing environment. Minimizing Environmental Impact: The proposed structure is removable and will create minimal landscape disturbance. We do not plan to remove any existing trees: only a small number of branches will require trimming for a safety clearance. Other locations on the property would require removal of trees 19 and other vegetation. The impervious footprint is limited to approximately one hundred square feet. Rather than intruding on undisturbed vegetation, the proposed site replaces an already-disturbed area, which is consistent with the protective purposes of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. Finally, the proposed location sits further away from the ordinary high-water mark than the closest point of the existing primary development on the property. The proposed placement is the most conservative option available given the physical constraints of the lot. Granting this variance is consistent with both the letter and spirit of the ordinance and provides relief because the unique lot conditions impose a barrier. We purchased this property to protect its unique beauty, not to destroy it. b.) UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP An applicant may not claim unnecessary hardship because of conditions which are self-imposed or created by a prior owner (for example, excavating a pond on a vacant lot and then arguing that there is no suitable location for a home). Courts have also determined that economic or financial hardship does not justify a variance. When determining whether unnecessary hardship exists, the property as a whole is considered rather than a portion of the parcel. The property owner bears the burden of proving unnecessary hardship. For an area variance, unnecessary hardship exists when compliance would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose (leaving the property owner without any use that is permitted for the property) or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. The board of adjustment must consider the purpose of the zoning restriction, the zoning restrictions effect on the property, and the short- term, long-term and cumulative effects of a variance on the neighborhood, the community and on the public interests. Unnecessary hardship is present because: In this specific case, unnecessary hardship arises from the physical character of the land itself, not because of our personal preferences or circumstances. As applied to this property, unnecessary hardship is present because of the strict enforcement of the 75-foot ordinary high watermark set back that given the physical constraints of the parcel make compliance unnecessarily difficult. The hardship arises from the natural characteristics of the land itself. As mentioned above, the physical features of the property and location of the well and septic system prevent compliant placement. These things existed prior to our acquisition of the property. Likewise, the deteriorating fenced enclosure was already installed when we purchased the property. None of these conditions were created to create a basis for our request. As described in section A, every location on this property that would satisfy the 75 -foot setback requirements either falls within a steep grade that would require substantial disturbance, excavation and construction of retaining walls, encroaches on the well and septic setback areas or would necessitate the removal of established trees or disruption of the natural landscape. These options would create a permanent unnatural scenery change for people travelling on Glidden Drive. Without causing significantly greater environmental harm, requiring compliance effectively makes any reasonable placement of an accessory structure impossible on our property. 20 Additionally, the shoreline setback requirements exist to protect water quality, preserve existing vegetation and minimize impervious surface near the ordinary high-water mark. The proposed 7x14 foot structure with an impervious footprint of approximately one hundred square feet will be placed on a site already disturbed by the existing fenced area. As no trees all planned for removal, ground disturbance will be minimal. The proposed location serves the same protective interests the ordinance was designed to advance, differing from full compliance by only 12 feet. b.) NO HARM TO PUBLIC INTERESTES A variance may not be granted which results in harm to public interests. In applying this test, the Board of Adjustment must consider the impacts of the proposal and the cumulative impacts of similar projects on the interests of the neighbors, the entire community and the general public. These interests are listed as objectives in the purpose statement of an ordinance and may include: • Public health, safety and welfare • Water quality • Fish and wildlife habitat • Natural scenic beauty • Minimization of property damages • Provision of efficient public facilities and utilities • Achievement of eventual compliance for nonconforming uses, structures and lots • Any other public interest issues A variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: Each of the relevant public interest considerations weigh in favor of approval: Public, Health, Safety & Welfare: The proposed structure is a small, accessory structure consistent with permitted uses on shoreline residential properties. Door County’s original approval of the permit in April 2026 reflects that the proposed use was found to be appropriate in principle. The structure poses no threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Additionally, the proposed site will not impede shoreline access to Door County residents and guests. Water Quality: The proposed structure has an impervious footprint of approximately one hundred square feet, which is minimal. The proposed design leaves the surrounding area largely undisturbed. The proposed site has already been disturbed by the existing fence enclosure. No native shoreline vegetation will be displaced by the project. Additionally, the proposed location sits high above the existing actual waterline and is unlikely to affect water quality. Fish and Wildlife Habitat: We do not plan to remove any trees as part of this project, and it will minimally expand the zone of disturbance on the property. As the current water edge is over 180 feet away, fish do not utilize the proposed site (nor is there any evidence to suggest that the water has reached this point in at least the last 70 years). Additionally, as the proposed location is near an existing human traffic area (parallel to the primary structure), wildlife disturbance is minimal. Physical limitations aside, other locations on the property would impact wildlife habitat to a greater extent. Further, as a non-utility structure, there are limited long-term environmental impacts (no plumbing or electrical will be installed). Natural Scenic Beauty: The proposed structure has been designed to complement the existing principal structure in appearance and materials, with the goal of minimizing its visual impact on the surrounding 21 landscape. The proposed location is naturally screened from both the road and shoreline by existing vegetation and topography, making it less visually prominent than alternative locations that would require removal of trees or slope disturbances. The removal of the deteriorating fenced enclosure will also improve the visual character of the site. Minimization of Property Damage: As mentioned above, the proposed location minimizes ground disturbance and other property damage. Precedent and Cumulative Impact: Granting this variance will not set a precedent that undermines the typical application of the shoreline ordinance. The hardship is tied directly to the specific physical conditions of this parcel. The cumulative effect of approving this request is negligible with respect to the broader community and protection of the ordinance. Consistency with Ordinance Purpose: The shoreland setback requirements in Door County exists to protect water quality, prevent harmful environmental impacts and preserve the natural scenic beauty of the coastline. The proposed structure sits further back from the shoreline than existing principal structure, thus the location does not represent the closest point of development to the water. The proposed location is nestled among the trees and should not affect water quality, should not cause great impervious land impact and will not negatively impact the environment. Granting this variance does not introduce a new or more aggressive encroachment toward the shoreline. Finally, if the lake levels rise above the 1986 and 2020 levels, the proposed structure is designed to be removeable so it could be relocated off the property, further minimizing any safety or environmental risks. If another suitable location existed on our property, we would utilize it. 22 23 24 25 26 27 Photos of Existing Site- 4120 Glidden Dr, Sturgeon Bay, WI Fenced Area will be removed and 7x14 accessory building placed here (orange flags): 28 New footprint will be smaller than existing fenced area: 29 Gray Stake represents 75 feet from Accessory Building on the water side. Building will be to left of the house in the trees: 30 31 LETTER(S) IN FAVOR VARIANCE WALL 32 Received 7/21/26 33 LETTER(S) IN OPPOSITION VARIANCE WALL 34 July 7, 2026 Door County Board of Adjustment Sent via email Dear Board Members: The Department of Natural Resources has received the notice for a July 28, 2026, public hearing concerning the variance request submitted by Betty Wall. Betty Wall is requesting a variance from Section IV.B.2.b of the Door County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance which requires accessory structures to be located at least 75’ from the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). The applicant proposes to construct an accessory structure (sauna) to be located as close as 63’ from the OHWM. The department is writing in response to the county Board of Adjustment’s request for an opinion from the department per Ch. 59.692(4)(b) Wis. Stat. as allowed by law. This letter is based on the information provided in the hearing notice and the application submitted. Please have this letter delivered to and read before the BOA. Per the information provided by the applicant, the department does not believe the applicant can demonstrate meeting the three statutory criteria for granting a variance. The Snyder vs Waukesha County Zoning Board of Adjustment decision (74 Wis. 2d 468, 478-79, 247 N.W.2d 98) made it clear a circumstance or desire of the applicant is not a factor to be considered when deciding variances. Further, the State vs Winnebago County decision ((196 Wis. 2d 836, 844-45 n.8, 540 N.W.2d 6 (Ct. App. 1995)) established that economic loss or financial hardship do not justify a variance. As the Board reviews these variance requests, please keep in mind that the applicant has the burden of proving that their request meets all of the statutory requirements for the granting of a variance. That is, the applicant must prove that they will suffer unnecessary hardship if the provisions in the county’s shoreland zoning ordinance are literally enforced. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has made it clear that proof of unnecessary hardship by itself does not entitle an applicant to a variance. All three statutory variance criteria must be satisfied in order to grant a variance. It may be possible that the applicant will provide additional evidence at the hearing which may change the conclusions listed below. Unique physical limitations: The applicant must demonstrate that unique physical limitations (wetlands, steep slopes, streams, rock outcroppings) or special conditions of the property exist that prevent compliance with ordinance regulations. The physical limitations must be unique to the property in question and not generally shared by other properties in the area. Many of the neighboring lots appear very similar in nature to the applicant’s. When determining if compliance is prevented, the whole parcel must be considered. There is a large buildable area shown on the Plat of Survey where the 7’ x 14’ sauna could be constructed and meet all required setbacks. No harm to public interests: The applicant must demonstrate that variance will not result in harm or be contrary to public interests. The Board must consider the impacts of the proposed project as well as the cumulative impacts of similar projects on the interests of the neighbors, the community, and the general public. These interests are listed in the purpose statement of the ordinance and, for shoreland State of Wisconsin DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 2984 Shawano Avenue Green Bay, WI 54313-6727 dnr.wi.gov wisconsin.gov 35 zoning, include protection of public health, safety and welfare, maintenance of clean water, protection of fish and wildlife habitat, and preservation of natural scenic beauty. Scientific studies have shown when projects are constructed within the water setback there can be environmental concerns such as a change in fish species from game fish to rough fish, loss of wildlife habitat, more run-off entering the lake without filtering, loss of natural scenic beauty, etc. Cumulative impacts of repeated projects so close to the water bodies can multiply the impacts of the loss of habitat. Unnecessary hardship: The applicant must demonstrate that if the variance is not granted, an unnecessary hardship exists. The applicant may not claim unnecessary hardship because of conditions which are self-imposed or created by a prior owner (for example, building a home in compliance and then subsequently constructing a deck without a permit). Courts have also determined that economic or financial hardship does not justify a variance. When determining whether unnecessary hardship exists, the Board must consider the property as a whole, rather than just a portion of the parcel. The property owner bears the burden of proving unnecessary hardship. According to the packet, alternative locations and designs appear to be available. Repeated variances for the construction or placement of structures within the shoreland setback area would be contrary to the public interest and have cumulative, adverse impacts. Please note that these comments are in regard to shoreland zoning regulations only, and do not reflect applicable erosion control, waterway permitting, floodplain zoning, or other department regulations. It is the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment to assure that the statutory standards for the granting of a variance are met. The standards help to ensure protection of the public interest, including the preservation of water quality and fish and wildlife habitat along lakes and rivers. Wisconsin’s navigable waterways are held in trust for all people to enjoy. The shoreland setback is important to protect the water quality, natural scenic beauty and the fish and wildlife habitat of Wisconsin’s waterways. The Department appreciates your commitment to Door County’s water resources and protection of public interests for future generations. Sincerely, Sue Vanden Langenberg Shoreland Zoning Program Coordinator 36 1 DOOR COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Decision – Rear Yard Setback Variance APPLICANT(S) NAME(S): The Ridges Sanctuary PROPERTY ADDRESSES / PIN: 8288 County Highway Q/ PIN: 002-03-17302842C HEARING DATE: July 14, 2026 DECISION DATE: July 14, 2026 DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED: Andy Gill, on behalf of The Ridges Sanctuary Inc., is requesting a variance from Section 3.02(3)(a) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which requires principal structures in the Small Estate Residential (SE) zoning district to be located at least 50 ft. from rear lot lines. The applicant proposes the addition of 12 ft. by 25 ft. overhang porch to the existing principal structure, located as close as 25 ft. from the rear lot line, including any eaves or overhangs. DECISION: On the basis of the Decision-Making Worksheets (attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full) and the record in this matter the Board of Adjustment finds and determines that: A. The requested variance from Section 3.02(3)(a) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance does meet the criteria set forth in Section 59.694(7), Wisconsin Statutes. The Board of Adjustment voted to approve the petition for grant of variance from 3.02(3)(a) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by the following vote. Monica Nelson: Aye Brian Forest: Aye Cheryl Mick: Aye Signed Signed Chairperson Recording Clerk Dated: July 28, 2026 Filed: July 29, 2026 Appeal: This decision may be appealed by a person aggrieved by this decision by filing an action in certiorari in the circuit court for this county within 30 days after the date of filing of this decision. The County of Door assumes no liability for and makes no warranty as to reliance on this decision if construction is commenced prior to expiration of this 30 day period. The privileges granted by this decision shall become void one (1) year after the filed date unless the zoning permits for the authorized project have been obtained within such time. 37 1 DOOR COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION-MAKING WORKSHEET APPLICANT(S) NAME(S): The Ridges Sanctuary PROPERTY ADDRESSES / PIN: 8288 County Highway Q/ PIN: 002-03-17302842C HEARING DATE: July 14, 2026 DECISION DATE: July 14, 2026 DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED: Andy Gill, on behalf of The Ridges Sanctuary Inc., is requesting a variance from Section 3.02(3)(a) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which requires principal structures in the Small Estate Residential (SE) zoning district to be located at least 50 ft. from rear lot lines. The applicant proposes the addition of 12 ft. by 25 ft. overhang porch to the existing principal structure, located as close as 25 ft. from the rear lot line, including any eaves or overhangs. To grant an area variance, all three of the standards enumerated below must be met. In addressing each standard, express the reasons for the decision, i.e., why the facts did or did not satisfy the standards, the weight and credibility of the evidence presented (or lack thereof), and any other relevant considerations. 1. UNIQUE PHYSICAL PROPERTY LIMITATIONS. Are there unique physical property limitations such as steep slopes, wetlands, or parcel shape that prevent compliance with the ordinance? The circumstances of an applicant (growing family, need for a larger garage, etc.) are not factors in deciding variances. Property limitations that prevent ordinance compliance and are common to a number of properties should be addressed by amending the ordinance. The variance is not warranted if the physical character of the property allows a landowner to develop or build in compliance with the zoning ordinance. In order for a variance to satisfy the unique physical property limitation test, the question below must be answered affirmatively. Does this property contain unique physical property limitations (e.g., wetland presence, parcel shape, steep slope, etc.) that would prevent compliance with the ordinance? YES __X__ NO _____ EXPLAIN: This parcel was determined to contain unique property limitations due to the previously compliant location that the cabin was placed in 1983 as well as the portion of the parcel in question is already disturbed. There are no alternatives due to the entire structure being located within the rear yard setback. 38 2 2. UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. Unnecessary hardship exists when a literal enforcement of the ordinance would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or when conformity with ordinance standards would be unnecessarily burdensome. Considerations: • Unnecessary hardship should be determined in light of the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance in question, as well as any statute or administrative rule upon which the ordinance is based. (See page 4.) The facts of the case should be analyzed in light of these purposes. Only after considering the purpose(s) of the statute and/or ordinance, and the nature of the specific restriction(s) at issue, may a decision be made as to whether or not failure to grant a variance will cause an unnecessary hardship. • Unnecessary hardship may arise due to a unique property limitation of a parcel (see #1, above). A variance is not warranted if the physical character of the property allows a landowner to develop or build in compliance with the zoning ordinance. • Unnecessary hardship does not include considerations personal to the property owner (e.g., personal preference, desire to maximizing the economic value of the property, or financial hardship caused by ordinance compliance). • Any self-created hardship, and/or any hardship that existed irrespective of the zoning ordinance in question are not proper grounds upon which to grant a variance. • Alternatives to a variance (e.g., conditional use permit or restrictive covenant) may, as neither runs with the land, be preferable to accommodate a disability of the owner or owner’s dependent. In order for a variance to satisfy the unnecessary hardship test, one of the questions below (A or B) must be answered affirmatively. A. Does denial of the variance -- i.e., requiring compliance with the strict letter of the ordinance provision(s) in question (e.g., setbacks, height limitations, etc.) -- unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose? YES __X__ NO _____ EXPLAIN: Denial of this request would be preventing a more effective, safer use of the existing, grandfathered private school. OR B. Is conformity with the regulation(s) unnecessarily burdensome? YES _____ NO _____ EXPLAIN: 39 3 3. PUBLIC INTEREST/SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. A variance may not be granted which results in harm to public interests, nor thwarts the spirit and intent of the ordinance. In applying this test, the board should review the purpose statements of the ordinance (and any statute or administrative rule upon which the ordinance is based) in order to identify public interests. (See page 4.) The short-term and long-term impacts of the proposal and the cumulative impacts of similar projects on the interests of the neighbors, the community, and even the state, should be considered. Review should focus on the general public interest, rather than just the narrow interests or impacts on neighbors, patrons, or residents in the vicinity of the project. Cumulative effects are a proper consideration. For instance, in the context of shoreland zoning, the general availability of variances permitting the horizontal expansion of structures so close to the water's edge may have the cumulative effect of enclosing our lakes within a wall of impermeable surfaces to the exclusion of vegetation and impairing the ecological functions of the shoreland buffer. A variance is not a popularity contest. The mere fact of public support or opposition is not, in and of itself, determinative of whether or not a variance is contrary to the public interest. The board may grant only the minimum variance needed, i.e., the minimum variance necessary to relieve the unnecessary hardship. For instance, if the request is for a variance of 30 feet from the minimum setback, and a finding is made that a 10-foot setback reduction would allow the petitioner to use the property for a permitted purpose, then only a 10-foot setback reduction may be authorized. Distinguish between hardships that are unnecessary in light of the unique conditions of the property and the purpose of the zoning ordinance from hardships that are inconsequential or not unique or because a variance would unduly undermine the purpose of the ordinance or the public interest. In order for a variance to satisfy the public interest test, the question below must be answered negatively. Does the granting of the variance result in harm to the public interest? YES _____ NO __X__ EXPLAIN: There were no concerns over the environmental impact of this addition due to the proposed location already being disturbed and being used for the same purpose without a overhang. The adjacent parcel is owned by Door County but was leased to the Ridges Sanctuary for 99 years so there was no concern over impact to neighboring parcels. Has the applicant seeking a variance demonstrated that each of the three standards has been satisfied in this case? YES __X__ NO _____. If yes, then substantial justice will be done by granting the variance. Dated this: July 14, 2026 40 4 Door County Zoning Ordinance Purpose Statements "1.04 Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote and protect public health, safety, aesthetics, and other aspects of the general welfare. Further purposes of this Ordinance are to: (1) Aid in implementing the county development plan. (2) Promote planned and orderly land use development. (3) Protect property values and the property tax base. (4) Fix reasonable dimensional requirements to which buildings, structures, and lots shall conform. (5) Prevent overcrowding of the land. (6) Advance uses of land in accordance with its character and suitability. (7) Provide property with access to adequate sunlight and clean air. (8) Aid in protection of groundwater and surface water. (9) Preserve wetlands. (10) Protect the beauty of landscapes. (11) Conserve flora and fauna habitats. (12) Preserve and enhance the county's rural characteristics. (13) Protect vegetative shore cover. (14) Promote safety and efficiency in the county's road transportation system. (15) Define the duties and powers of administrative bodies in administering this Ordinance. (16) Prescribe penalties for violation of this Ordinance." Wisconsin Statutes Purpose Statement 281.31. Navigable waters protection law "(1) To aid in the fulfillment of the state's role as trustee of its navigable waters and to promote public health, safety, convenience and general welfare, it is declared to be in the public interest to make studies, establish policies, make plans and authorize municipal shoreland zoning regulations for the efficient use, conservation, development and protection of this state's water resources. The regulations shall relate to lands under, abutting or lying close to navigable waters. The purposes of the regulations shall be to further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic life; control building sites, placement of structure and land uses and reserve shore cover and natural beauty." (Emphasis added.) Examples as to how to use the above in conjunction with analysis of a variance request When considering a variance request to relax the required ordinary high water mark setback, county zoning ordinance purposes (8), (10), (11), and (13) are likely relevant to consider. Purposes (2), (3), (4), and (5) may also be relevant. Depending upon the nature of the variance request, any of the components of the statutory purposes behind shoreland zoning (above) may be relevant to consider. When considering a variance request to relax a required yard (setback), county zoning ordinance purposes (2), (3), (4), and (5) are likely relevant to consider. 41 1 DOOR COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Decision – Ordinary High Water Mark Setback Variance APPLICANT(S) NAME(S): Karen Zimmer PROPERTY ADDRESSES / PIN: 1136 Garrett Bay Rd./ PIN: 018-02-01322812L HEARING DATE: July 14, 2026 DECISION DATE: July 14, 2026 DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED: Karen Zimmer is requesting a variance from Section IV.B.2.b. of the Door County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance which states that structures shall be located a minimum of 75’ away from the ordinary high-water mark. The applicant proposes the construction of a 16 ft. by 22 ft. detached garage, located as close as 48 ft. from the ordinary high-water mark, including any eaves or overhangs. DECISION: On the basis of the Decision-Making Worksheets (attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full) and the record in this matter the Board of Adjustment finds and determines that: A. The requested variance from Section 3.02(3)(a) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance does meet the criteria set forth in Section 59.694(7), Wisconsin Statutes. The Board of Adjustment voted to approve the petition for grant of variance from 3.02(3)(a) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by the following vote. Monica Nelson: Aye Brian Forest: Aye Cheryl Mick: Aye Signed Signed Chairperson Recording Clerk Dated: July 28, 2026 Filed: July 29, 2026 Appeal: This decision may be appealed by a person aggrieved by this decision by filing an action in certiorari in the circuit court for this county within 30 days after the date of filing of this decision. The County of Door assumes no liability for and makes no warranty as to reliance on this decision if construction is commenced prior to expiration of this 30 day period. The privileges granted by this decision shall become void one (1) year after the filed date unless the zoning permits for the authorized project have been obtained within such time. 42 1 DOOR COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION-MAKING WORKSHEET APPLICANT(S) NAME(S): Karen Zimmer PROPERTY ADDRESSES / PIN: 1136 Garrett Bay Rd./ PIN: 018-02-01322812L HEARING DATE: July 14, 2026 DECISION DATE: July 14, 2026 DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED: Karen Zimmer is requesting a variance from Section IV.B.2.b. of the Door County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance which states that structures shall be located a minimum of 75’ away from the ordinary high-water mark. The applicant proposes the construction of a 16 ft. by 22 ft. detached garage, located as close as 48 ft. from the ordinary high -water mark, including any eaves or overhangs. To grant an area variance, all three of the standards enumerated below must be met. In addressing each standard, express the reasons for the decision, i.e., why the facts did or did not satisfy the standards, the weight and credibility of the evidence presented (or lack thereof), and any other relevant considerations. 1. UNIQUE PHYSICAL PROPERTY LIMITATIONS. Are there unique physical property limitations such as steep slopes, wetlands, or parcel shape that prevent compliance with the ordinance? The circumstances of an applicant (growing family, need for a larger garage, etc.) are not factors in deciding variances. Property limitations that prevent ordinance compliance and are common to a number of properties should be addressed by amending the ordinance. The variance is not warranted if the physical character of the property allows a landowner to develop or build in compliance with the zoning ordinance. In order for a variance to satisfy the unique physical property limitation test, the question below must be answered affirmatively. Does this property contain unique physical property limitations (e.g., wetland presence, parcel shape, steep slope, etc.) that would prevent compliance with the ordinance? YES __X__ NO _____ EXPLAIN: The parcel in question was determined to contain unique property limitations due to overlapping setbacks and physical characteristics. The shoreline, bluff, and public roadway bisecting the parcel create an unusable buildable area even with the road right-of-way setback being reduced to the minimum 10 feet allowed in Section 3.05(6)(c) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 43 2 2. UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. Unnecessary hardship exists when a literal enforcement of the ordinance would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or when conformity with ordinance standards would be unnecessarily burdensome. Considerations: • Unnecessary hardship should be determined in light of the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance in question, as well as any statute or administrative rule upon which the ordinance is based. (See page 4.) The facts of the case should be analyzed in light of these purposes. Only after considering the purpose(s) of the statute and/or ordinance, and the nature of the specific restriction(s) at issue, may a decision be made as to whether or not failure to grant a variance will cause an unnecessary hardship. • Unnecessary hardship may arise due to a unique property limitation of a parcel (see #1, above). A variance is not warranted if the physical character of the property allows a landowner to develop or build in compliance with the zoning ordinance. • Unnecessary hardship does not include considerations personal to the property owner (e.g., personal preference, desire to maximizing the economic value of the property, or financial hardship caused by ordinance compliance). • Any self-created hardship, and/or any hardship that existed irrespective of the zoning ordinance in question are not proper grounds upon which to grant a variance. • Alternatives to a variance (e.g., conditional use permit or restrictive covenant) may, as neither runs with the land, be preferable to accommodate a disability of the owner or owner’s dependent. In order for a variance to satisfy the unnecessary hardship test, one of the questions below (A or B) must be answered affirmatively. A. Does denial of the variance -- i.e., requiring compliance with the strict letter of the ordinance provision(s) in question (e.g., setbacks, height limitations, etc.) -- unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose? YES _____ NO _____ EXPLAIN: OR B. Is conformity with the regulation(s) unnecessarily burdensome? YES __X__ NO _____ EXPLAIN: The existing cottage is being occupied as a full-time residence with limited storage and no shelter for the resident to store her vehicle. Due to the extremely limited buildable area, alternative locations for the proposed structure would require additional variances to the applicable ordinances. Preventing the resident from the opportunity to store her vehicle indoors or having any additional storage was determined to be unnecessarily burdensome. 44 3 3. PUBLIC INTEREST/SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. A variance may not be granted which results in harm to public interests, nor thwarts the spirit and intent of the ordinance. In applying this test, the board should review the purpose statements of the ordinance (and any statute or administrative rule upon which the ordinance is based) in order to identify public interests. (See page 4.) The short-term and long-term impacts of the proposal and the cumulative impacts of similar projects on the interests of the neighbors, the community, and even the state, should be considered. Review should focus on the general public interest, rather than just the narrow interests or impacts on neighbors, patrons, or residents in the vicinity of the project. Cumulative effects are a proper consideration. For instance, in the context of shoreland zoning, the general availability of variances permitting the horizontal expansion of structures so close to the water's edge may have the cumulative effect of enclosing our lakes within a wall of impermeable surfaces to the exclusion of vegetation and impairing the ecological functions of the shoreland buffer. A variance is not a popularity contest. The mere fact of public support or opposition is not, in and of itself, determinative of whether or not a variance is contrary to the public interest. The board may grant only the minimum variance needed, i.e., the minimum variance necessary to relieve the unnecessary hardship. For instance, if the request is for a variance of 30 feet from the minimum setback, and a finding is made that a 10-foot setback reduction would allow the petitioner to use the property for a permitted purpose, then only a 10-foot setback reduction may be authorized. Distinguish between hardships that are unnecessary in light of the unique conditions of the property and the purpose of the zoning ordinance from hardships that are inconsequential or not unique or because a variance would unduly undermine the purpose of the ordinance or the public interest. In order for a variance to satisfy the public interest test, the question below must be answered negatively. Does the granting of the variance result in harm to the public interest? YES _____ NO __X__ EXPLAIN: There is no negative impact to the public interest due to the minimal nature of the request, the utilization of a previously disturbed portion of the parcel, as well as a reduction in runoff as the floor drain will be feeding to the holding tank instead of onto the ground above the escarpment. Has the applicant seeking a variance demonstrated that each of the three standards has been satisfied in this case? YES __X__ NO _____. If yes, then substantial justice will be done by granting the variance. Dated this: July 14, 2026 45 4 Door County Zoning Ordinance Purpose Statements "1.04 Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote and protect public health, safety, aesthetics, and other aspects of the general welfare. Further purposes of this Ordinance are to: (1) Aid in implementing the county development plan. (2) Promote planned and orderly land use development. (3) Protect property values and the property tax base. (4) Fix reasonable dimensional requirements to which buildings, structures, and lots shall conform. (5) Prevent overcrowding of the land. (6) Advance uses of land in accordance with its character and suitability. (7) Provide property with access to adequate sunlight and clean air. (8) Aid in protection of groundwater and surface water. (9) Preserve wetlands. (10) Protect the beauty of landscapes. (11) Conserve flora and fauna habitats. (12) Preserve and enhance the county's rural characteristics. (13) Protect vegetative shore cover. (14) Promote safety and efficiency in the county's road transportation system. (15) Define the duties and powers of administrative bodies in administering this Ordinance. (16) Prescribe penalties for violation of this Ordinance." Wisconsin Statutes Purpose Statement 281.31. Navigable waters protection law "(1) To aid in the fulfillment of the state's role as trustee of its navigable waters and to promote public health, safety, convenience and general welfare, it is declared to be in the public interest to make studies, establish policies, make plans and authorize municipal shoreland zoning regulations for the efficient use, conservation, development and protection of this state's water resources. The regulations shall relate to lands under, abutting or lying close to navigable waters. The purposes of the regulations shall be to further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic life; control building sites, placement of structure and land uses and reserve shore cover and natural beauty." (Emphasis added.) Examples as to how to use the above in conjunction with analysis of a variance request When considering a variance request to relax the required ordinary high water mark setback, county zoning ordinance purposes (8), (10), (11), and (13) are likely relevant to consider. Purposes (2), (3), (4), and (5) may also be relevant. Depending upon the nature of the variance request, any of the components of the statutory purposes behind shoreland zoning (above) may be relevant to consider. When considering a variance request to relax a required yard (setback), county zoning ordinance purposes (2), (3), (4), and (5) are likely relevant to consider. 46 MINUTES OF MEETING DOOR COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 14, 2026 1.0 Call to order and declaration of quorum. The meeting was called to order by Monica Nelson at 4:32 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, in the Peninsula Room (C- 121) of the Door County Government Center, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. Present: BOA Members Staff Monica Nelson Adam Ferrell, Code Administrator Brian Forest Karyn Behling, Land Use Services Director Cheryl Mick (Via Zoom) 2.0 Discuss and arrive at a decision on Petition for Grant of Variance. 2.1 Andy Gill; rear yard setback; Baileys Harbor; PIN 0020317302842C (8288 County Highway Q) Motion by Cheryl Mick, seconded by Brian Forest, to approve the variance. Motion carried unanimously (3-0). The basis for the decision is set forth in the Board of Adjustment decision document. 2.2 Karen Zimmer; ordinary high-water mark setback; PIN 0180201322812L (1136 Garrett Bay Rd.) Motion by Brian Forest, seconded by Cheryl Mick, to approve the variance. Motion carried unanimously (3-0). The basis for the decision is set forth in the Board of Adjustment decision document. 3.0 Vote for Chairperson 3.1 No action taken. 4.0 Vote for Vice-Chairperson 4.1 No action taken. 5.0 Read and act on minutes of May 26, 2025, meeting. Motion by Brian Forest, seconded by Monica Nelson, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously (3-0). 6.0 Future meeting schedule: • July 28th: Public Hearing • August 11th: Business Meeting • August 25th: Public Hearing 7.0 Vouchers. All BOA members’ vouchers reflect a 1-hour meeting. 8.0 Adjournment. Motion by Brian Forest, seconded by Cheryl Mick, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously (3-0). Monica Nelson declared the meeting adjourned at 5:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Adam Ferrell, Code Administrator 47