City Hall  
City of La Crosse, Wisconsin  
400 La Crosse Street  
La Crosse, WI 54601  
Meeting Minutes - Final  
Board of Zoning Appeals  
Monday, February 16, 2026  
4:00 PM  
Council Chambers  
City Hall, First Floor  
Call to Order  
Chair Cherf called the meeting to order and explained the meeting procedures.  
Roll Call  
5 -  
Present:  
Jai Johnson, James Cherf, James Szymalak, Ben Stepanek,Andrew  
Sherman  
Annual Code of Ethics Review  
Chair Cherf confirmed the Board's review of the Code of Ethics.  
Variance Appeals:  
An appeal regarding the requirement to have fill 15 feet beyond the structure  
2700  
one foot or more above the regional flood elevation at 412 Liberty Street, La  
Crosse, Wisconsin.  
Cherf clarified that the appeal request is only regarding the 15 feet of fill.  
Jeremiah Huber, representing the Building and Inspections Department, was sworn in  
to speak. Huber reviewed the three requirements for granting a variance: unnecessary  
hardship, hardship due to unique property limitations, and no harm to public interest.  
Huber stated that the owner of 412 Liberty Street had applied for a permit to construct  
a new single-family dwelling that does not meet the 15 feet of fill requirement for  
construction in a flood fringe district on both the North and South side of the property.  
He showed a current image of the property at 412 Liberty Street. Per Municipal Code  
Section 115.281 - Flood Fringe District (FF) 1. the fill shall be one foot or more above  
the regional flood elevation extending at least 15 feet beyond the limits of the  
structure. Huber stated that a variance of 12.6 feet on the North and 15 feet on the  
South side of the property would need to be granted and he showed images of site  
plans, floor plans, and elevation. Cherf asked how wide the lot is and Huber stated it is  
140 feet by 50 feet. Huber stated that the unnecessary hardship is that the property  
cannot be developed if the proper fill cannot be provided because it is in the floodplain,  
the hardship due to unique property limitations is that the size of the lot does not allow  
for the required fill, and that there is no harm to public interest; therefore, the  
requested variance should be granted.  
Johnson asked for clarification on the definitions of fill and setbacks as they relate to  
the appeal. Huber restated that the Code states 15 feet of fill which is horizontal, not  
vertical. David Reinhart, representing the Building and Inspections Department, was  
sworn in to speak. Johnson asked if the request is to build a house with no setback  
on one side of the property and less than a three-foot setback on the other side.  
Reinhart stated that the zoning setback for the side yard will be met with a six-foot  
side yard on each side and the variance requested is for the fill because 15 feet of fill  
out from the dwelling is required. He clarified that the applicant requested zero fill on  
one side and three feet on the other side so the setbacks required by the Zoning  
Ordinance will be met, but the setbacks required by the Floodplain Ordinance will not.  
Johnson asked if granting the variance would affect the City's status in terms of  
community rating and insurance, and if this variance would be a violation that there are  
no external consequences for. Reinhart stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals is  
allowed to grant variances for the width of fill, not the height, so it would not be a DNR  
or FEMA violation because the 15 feet of fill is a DNR rule. Gideon Wertheimer,  
representing the Attorney's Office, was sworn in to speak. Johnson asked if ignoring  
the setback requirement could result in the City losing FEMA assistance and raising  
rates for insurance on properties within the City. Wertheimer stated that the Ordinance  
was approved based off the DNR and FEMA but he defers to Reinhart's judgment  
because he works with FEMA more. Szymalak asked why the lot cannot be filled to  
be above floodplain to become a buildable lot with the proper setbacks. Reinhart  
stated that fill could be brought in to bring it out of the floodplain if it is contiguous to  
lots outside of the floodplain, but the fill requirements would still need to be met.  
Szymalak asked why this lot cannot be filled to become floodplain compliant. Reinhart  
stated that the building would be floodplain compliant if the variance was granted for  
the width of the fill and that the lot is not wide enough to bring in the full 15 feet of fill.  
Szymalak asked what an example of a situation would be for a variance to be denied if  
this variance was granted. Reinhart clarified that the request is not for a height of fill  
variance but for a width of fill variance. Reinhart stated that if the requested variance is  
granted with changes, additional variances will be required. Szymalak asked what the  
standard is for granting a variance if this were granted. Reinhart stated that is up to the  
Board. Johnson asked why the retaining walls are not proposed to be on the lot lines to  
comply with a minimum variance. Reinhart stated that the current variance would not  
require additional variances, but if the Board grants a lesser variance than requested,  
the applicant may have to obtain additional variances. Szymalak asked for  
confirmation that the law in the State of Wisconsin pertaining to floodplain states that  
the variance should be the absolute minimum required to obtain compliance.  
Wertheimer confirmed that the law requires the minimum variance for meeting the  
requirements to grant a variance.  
Leonardo Silva, N2685 County Road FA, was sworn in to speak. Silva confirmed that  
the front, back, and side yard setback requirements would be met if this property was  
not in the floodplain. He stated that the 15-foot variance in question has to be 15 feet  
from the edge of the building. He added that on the South side, they decided not to put  
the retaining wall on the lot line but use a decorative foundation wall to contain all the  
fill 6.8 feet from the property line and anything remaining on the North side. Silva  
stated that the unnecessary hardship is in order to have the 15-foot extrusion from the  
foundation on all sides, given that this lot is only 50 feet wide, would leave only 20 feet  
of building space. Since this is a residential lot, the plan is designed to fit in with the  
neighborhood and will be 1,800 square feet. Silva added that the hardship due to  
unique property limitations is that the property is in the floodplain which includes the  
added requirement of 15 feet of fill. The finished floor level will be compliant with FEMA  
requirements. He stated that there is no harm to public interest because they are  
being conscious of neighboring properties, including placing the retaining wall farther  
back to create space from the neighboring single-story dwelling. Johnson asked for  
clarification on the amount of horizontal fill needed. Silva confirmed that they will need  
7.5 feet of fill from the street elevation. Johnson asked why they are not placing the  
retaining walls on the lot lines. Silva stated that on the South side, the reasoning is  
water mitigation, and to the North, a retaining wall is not needed, and a slope will be  
used instead. Stepanek asked why the applicant chose to pursue this particular level  
of variance. Silva restated that a variance would not be needed if the building was only  
20 feet wide, but they wanted to make the first level ADA compliant.  
Reinhart clarified that the property to the North does not have an elevation certificate  
on file and that there is not fill being brought in to bring the property out of the  
floodplain, but rather that it is being used to make the property floodplain compliant.  
A motion was made by Szymalak, seconded by Stepanek, to grant a variance  
that reduces the 15 foot fill requirement to that of the North and South lot lines  
with the requirement that the applicant bring in fill up to the minimum  
requirement for elevation. The motion carried by the following vote:  
4 - Johnson, Cherf, Szymalak,Stepanek  
1 - Sherman  
Yes:  
No:  
Adjournment  
Meeting adjourned at 4:54 p.m.