 |
|
|
| 7/31/2007 12:49:00 PM | Email this article • Print this article | Public offers stiff opposition to shoreland zoning changes
Crowds smaller but the message is the same
Attendance was down at a DNR hearing in Rhinelander last week on proposed changes to the state's shoreland zoning code, but those who showed up expressed the same opposition that larger crowds did in previous hearings several years ago.
Between 100 and 150 people came to tell the DNR what they didn't like, with only a few people expressing support for the revisions.
The DNR's new plan will give owners of existing structures within the 75-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark the ability to perform unlimited maintenance and repair. Gone is the old 50 percent rule for nonconforming structures - limiting repairs and reconstruction to 50 percent of the structure's current equalized value over its lifetime. Instead the agency will regulate the amount of impervious, or hard, surfaces on each property within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark.
Specifically, for property owners wanting to build a new structure, the cap of impervious surfaces would be 20 percent, with 10 percent triggering mitigation requirements. For owners of existing structures who want to expand that structure or add a patio or other hard surface, the cap would be 20 percent and the trigger, 15 percent.
Mitigation means the property owners would have to ensure that a certain proportion of rainfall would soak into the ground rather than run off into the water, and it could involve a variety of methods, from installing infiltration basins, establishing rain gardens, restoring plantings to the area, maintaining trees and plants by the water or reducing the total amount of impervious surfaces on the property.
A strict equation
The DNR's goal for mitigation is to have postdevelopment runoff equal predevelopment runoff; each mitigation requirement would be developed site-by-site and case-by-case, using performance standards the agency is still developing.
The standards, or "matrixes," as the DNR calls them, would take into account soil type, distance from the shoreland, and the particular proposed project itself, including its size, the amount of hard surfaces involved and the number and type of trees and shrubs left intact, to determine environmental impacts.
But, at last week's hearing, many said the DNR had its priorities all wrong.
"In the past five years there have been endless drafts of this, and you have put an emphasis on regulating people off their lands, and yet we get not one single penny to fight aquatic invasive species," said Oneida County supervisor Gary Baier.
As many did, Baier said the new regulations would be inordinately expensive for counties and homeowners alike.
"You're going to need an engineer, a surveyor and a lawyer to do any modifications on your property and you're just going to make more people nonconforming with these regulations," he said.
More than triple the cost
The Vilas County zoning administrator, Dawn Schmidt, talked about the cost to administer the rules, including more onsite inspections. She said her own budget needs just to conduct those inspections would rise from $24,000 a year to $84,000 a year.
Jay Verhulst, a Vilas County supervisor, said the DNR had simply failed to listen to the people.
"As a result, you have come up with a draft that overreaches and attempts to overcome existing statutes and existing case law," Verhulst said.
Verhulst also questioned the credibility of the agency's science and said the DNR was attempting to fold other administrative rules into NR115 in an effort to transfer enforcement responsibility from the agency to counties.
"You are not creating a minimum standard but a strict zoning ordinance and that is not your statutory [responsibility]," he said.
Verhulst said there should be no revision so long as the proposed rule exempts incorporated areas and he said the effort would end up in litigation if the agency forced its will upon the people.
"I guess you are daring us to take you to court, and that is a pitiful thing for a state agency to do," he said.
Why regulation is needed
At least one property owner pointed to pollution in the incorporated areas as a reason to support the proposed rule.
"We need regulations," Mark Schuelke said. "They are necessary to protect everyone. We are trying to prevent what has happened in the southern part of the state. We need regulations like this or our lakes will turn into the green quagmires we see in the southern part of the state."
But the vast majority of the speakers were steadfastly opposed, objecting to everything from what they saw as increasing legal battles to a philosophical opposition to the government taking of property.
"We are assessed high property taxes, but we can only use 10 to 15 percent of our property," Vern Moore said. "The DNR is forcing counties to control the use of 85 to 90 percent of a person's property."
Pam LaBine, the Forest County zoning administrator, addressed the litigation aspect.
"This will be a legal nightmare," she said. "It will ratchet up legal action between my office and property owners and between my office and the DNR."
Oneida County zoning director Karl Jennrich, representing the Wisconsin County Code Administrators, said that group remained opposed to key provisions of the proposal, and he observed that Oneida County several years ago abandoned its own impervious surface standards because of an inability to enforce the provisions.
Jennrich reminded DNR officials that code administrators would be the primary enforcers of the new regulation.
"We are the foot soldiers for the state," he said. "We are the ones who for the most part will determine the impervious surface calculations."
No faith in proposal?
Art Jaros Jr., the owner of the Squash Lake Christian Camp, objected to a proposed 35-foot height restriction and the lack of a "First Amendment exemption" for a church steeple.
"How does the height of a building preserve wildlife habitat?" he asked. "Far more aesthetic damage is done by cell towers that are built that we can see from a distance. The regulation does not deal with that visual blight but wouldn't allow a church steeple."
Jaros, too, questioned the DNR's science, asking where the DNR got its numbers for the impervious surface caps. Jaros said, "20 percent sounds arbitrary."
Finally, one property owner suggested the DNR simply found shoreland property owners to be an easy mark.
"I believe air quality has a bigger impact than someone with a gazebo," the property owner said. "But maybe good people are a better target than big industry."
In addition to regulating structures based on impervious surfaces, the proposed rule would require a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet for new single-family homes. Current rules allow smaller lots for structures with sanitary sewers instead of septic systems. Counties would be required to develop lot size standards for multi-family residential development, campgrounds, and mobile home parks.
The requirements would also tighten the trigger for land division review, which would be changed from three or more lots to the creation of one or more lots, a change the agency says is necessary to ensure that all lots have a compliant building location.
And, while the 75-foot setback would be retained, the new rules would allow for construction closer to the water of new on-land boathouses 250 square feet or smaller, gazebos, decks and patios, utilities, flagpoles, satellite dishes, utilities and other structures. Current rules exempt only piers, boat hoists and boathouses.
|
Reader Comments
Posted: Friday, September 11, 2009
Article comment by:
Anthony Whittington
I grew up around the Madison Lakes and am familiar with The Three Lakes Chain. The water quality in the Dane County lakes is poor. The lake issues we are experiencing are not directly related to building set back requirements, building height restrictions or homeowners renovating or adding onto their existing property. Our lake water issues are mainly attributed to years of agricultural and city street water run off (fertilizer). We have many more moderately populated communities and more farms surrounding our lakes, rivers and streams, which escalates the problem.
Creating additional “Man Laws” to generate revenue is not the answer to maintaining Wisconsin’s lakes. The answer is to continue to provide support to the local communities so they can govern and educate people on their own. If this law passes we will only have succeeded in driving a wedge between property owners and the DNR.
Just my two cents on it.
|
Comment on this story
|
|
|
|
