 |
|
|
| 7/24/2007 8:48:00 AM | Email this article • Print this article | Proposed shoreland changes meet fierce opposition
Vilas County supervisors say amendments are unworkable
Ana Davis
Freelance Reporter
The Vilas County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously this week to oppose the DNR's proposed revisions to NR115, the state's shoreland zoning administrative rule.
The board agreed to send a certified copy of the resolution to every county clerk in the state, along with zoning administrator Dawn Schmidt's notes on the potential pitfalls and costs to the county and its taxpayers.
The DNR's revisions are designed, in its language, 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 preserve shore cover and natural beauty."
The proposed rule, which sets minimum statewide standards, includes changes to vegetation management in primary shoreland buffers and changes to the regulation of nonconforming structures.
There are also new requirements for minimum lot size and density for multi-unit residential developments, mobile home parks and campgrounds, new formulas to calculate reduced shoreland setbacks, an impervious surface standard and mitigation standards (restoring natural functions to balance those lost through development and human actions).
Proposals unrealistic
According to the board, the proposed impervious surface standards are unrealistic and will be unnecessarily burdensome and expensive for property owners, and the new formulas are so complicated it will take mathematicians or specially trained engineers to calculate them.
The proposal would cap the amount of impervious surfaces on property within 300 feet of the shoreline at 20 percent, with 10 percent triggering required mitigation measures for new development and 15 percent triggering such requirements for existing developments.
If the amendments are approved, supervisors argued, they will result in the need for additional county zoning staff, department office space and other costs to the county.
The consensus among supervisors and zoning staff was that the DNR's amendment is very difficult to understand on paper and unworkable in practice, particularly as it applies to existing structures, as well as new buildings.
"There have been 15 drafts of this thing in five years," said board supervisor Ronald De Bruyne. "Even the Wisconsin county code administrators did not have up-to-date drafts. If I employed someone who made 15 drafts, I'd look elsewhere."
NR115 was originally drafted in 1968 for shoreland zoning, De Bruyne said, and it was a good idea but had flaws. These were addressed by lawsuits, he said, but that didn't explain where the latest DNR proposals had come from.
"It's an attempt to gain what they were looking for five years ago," board supervisor Jay Verhulst said. "They have not waived from that. They have just tried to make it palatable."
Charles Ahlborn, who is the chairman of the Vilas County zoning and planning committee, said the DNR's proposed changes had been on the zoning department's agenda for the past year.
"We've discussed it at every meeting," Ahlborn said, "and it becomes routinely more onerous."
Vilas County chairman Charles Rayala said the state and federal government kept putting obstacles in the way of the county.
"The city of Madison can do anything, even though they have the filthiest water," he said. "I have a problem with the bureaucracy."
NR115 regulations do not apply in incorporated areas such as Madison and other cities.
Expensive and restrictive
Schmidt explained to the board how she believes the proposed changes will actually impact Vilas County in terms of cost, time, extra staff and education of both staff and the general public.
Landowners in Vilas County would face increased property taxes, she said, as well as expensive increases in building and development. The cost to administer the changes would also be extremely high because of the extra staff needed to ensure the amendments were being carried out correctly, as well as more frequent onsite inspections and visits.
"We're spending about $28,000 per year on site visits at the moment," Schmidt said. "You could double or triple that, just for mileage. We do not have the technical help now to administer NR115 and our own ordinance without piling more on the county plate. They cut back on DNR field staff, yet are now putting forth more rules with fewer people."
The amendments would also mean greater restrictions on landowners, she said, and greater complications for them.
"These new impervious surface standards, which will apply to new and existing structures, are very difficult for the average person to fill out," Schmidt said. "It blows my mind how much math it takes to calculate (some of the DNR's requirements)."
Schmidt gave the example of section 20 in NR115, which states that "counties shall require property owners to contain or infiltrate the average annual rainfall to the maximum extent practicable, with the goal that the pre-development and post-development runoff remaining (sic) the same."
"But the rainfall varies every year," retorted Ahlborn, "so do we need a meteorologist's report to determine the average rainfall?"
Supervisor Bob Egan asked whether this amendment would mean an engineer would need to be hired every time someone wanted to build an addition on their house.
"Yes - unless you are a mathematician," Schmidt said. "Surveyors might pick it up, but there's going to be an additional cost (to the property owner)."
Red tape and delays
Because the amendment applies to existing structures as well as new construction, Schmidt said the red tape and permits would overwhelm the county zoning office, and could cause lengthy delays in building projects.
"One single person could not review every permit," she said. "Not to mention the state certification, training sessions and education [that] staff would need. Plus the timeline would be increased, with all the running back and forth. We have a short building season of four or five months here, and some projects might take a couple of years to complete."
Assistant zoning administrator Mary Greenman said her concern was how the changes would actually be implemented.
"Dawn and I are on the front line," she said. "We are the ones who go out on the sites, and we never see the DNR from Madison."
In the past, counties had been given the option whether to act as agents for the state, Greenman said, but this time it was being forced upon them.
"We've become a cash register for Madison," Ahlborn said. "This will create new revenues for the state."
Unusable land
Verhulst said the Vilas County zoning office was doing a great job that was working.
"The DNR is going to the extreme," he said. "No property owner is going to pay high taxes for land they can't use."
"If anyone in this room thinks this rewrite is good, I'd like to talk to them," said supervisor James Spring. He said it would cost him thousands of dollars to change his own house back to the way it was 150 years ago.
"The impervious surface thing is ridiculous," Spring said. "We have a lot of sandy land that absorbs rain water quickly. We need to use our heads and vote on this soon."
Preservation of lakes essential
Supervisor Edward Bluthardt said it was important to remember the reasons for the DNR's proposal, which was to preserve Wisconsin's lakes and land.
"I understand all the objections and confusions," he said. "But if you sit on a lake, you can see the adverse effect that is taking place. We should make it clear that, although we object to NR115, we do not oppose corrective measures for protecting lakes and shorelines."
There were significant changes in the types of development going on, Bluthardt said, such as large scale condominiums that were two or three stories high and had 30 units or more with parking lots and garages.
"We have to be clear that we are not objecting to saving our lakes for future generations," he said.
Visitors want lake views
Greenman said that a 1996 study of Vilas County revealed that the main reasons people visit the area are to enjoy the views and peaceful tranquility, to observe wildlife, and to fish.
"There are 1,300 lakes in Vilas County," she said. "So we have the most to lose. Yet this NR115 of the DNR says that one size fits all. It's taken them five years just to get this draft to us, and there's nothing simple in it for property owners."
The motion to pass the resolution opposing the DNR's proposed changes to NR115 was passed unanimously, and Verhulst advised all supervisors to attend the DNR's public hearing in Rhinelander on July 25.
"I guarantee that every one of you is better educated than anyone else in the state (on this matter)," Verhulst said, "and you have more to say."
|
Reader Comments
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2007
Article comment by:
Bob Miller
If the DNR wants to govern the first 30' of my property they can buy it, pay me the devalued amount and pay the taxes
Posted: Friday, July 27, 2007
Article comment by:
Jerry Englebert
Congratulations to the Supervisors of Vilas County. This one size fits all approach of the DNR has gone on long enough. Working for a general contractor in Door County and the Fox Valley for 17 years has given me more than enough experience working with the DNR. Its time for some common sense. This issue is way to complicated to be one size fits all.
|
Comment on this story
|
|
|
|
