Shoreland revamp raises local concerns Sept. 19, 2009 Langlade County zoning officials are watching with care, and some concern, as the state Legislature reviews a Department of Natural Resources overhaul of shoreland zoning regulations.
Since a 1999 revamp, Langlade County has had among the strongest sets of shoreland zoning regulations in the state. That means that the proposed requirements known as NR 115 are not stirring nearly as much concern here as elsewhere, such as Oneida County with its very liberal requirements.
But Zoning Administrator Becky Frisch is still urging some tweaking.
“We’re asking them to let us continue what we are doing currently,” Frisch said, adding that the rules are working here.
The most onerous of the DNR’s planned requirements include just what land is covered under shoreland zoning rules dealing with impervious surfaces.
NR115 would would make all land within 1,000 feet of a lakeshore or 300 feet of a river or stream subject to new impervious surface requirements.
Frisch said that requirement is far more extensive than Langlade County’s straight 300 foot impervious surface requirement and, if enacted, would make large swaths of unincorporated towns such as Elcho and Summit Lake subject to impervious surface limits due to their proximity to Otter Lake and Summit Lake.
“If they would just keep the requirement at 300 feet or just for lots with water frontage, that would solve most of the problems with the proposed revisions,” Frisch said.
State Sen. Jim Holperin said he has the same concerns, and has introduced a bill to level the playing field for unincorporated downtowns by exempting them from the shoreland zoning rule.
“For over 30 years every single incorporated area of the state has been exempt from state shoreland zoning requirements,” Holperin said, “and nobody has seemed to think this is a big deal, environmentally. All I’m suggesting with this legislation is that small unincorporated downtowns enjoy the same privilege.”
“Impervious surface” is defined in the county regulations as any manmade or constructed surfaces which do not allow runoff waters to infiltrate into the ground, Examples include, but are not limited to, roofs, paved areas, decks and driveways.
Under current county zoning, buildings may not occupy more than 15 percent of a total lot area within 300 feet of the water. Impervious surfaces like driveways and walks must not exceed 5 percent unless a storm water management plan is implemented or unless the runoff does not drain to surface waters.
Frisch said the new statewide zoning rules are only a bit tougher but would carry far more repercussions since they would apply to all land within 1,000 feet of shoreline. They would also expand the definition of impervious structure to include gravel driveways, an area now exempt from the county rules, and may require variances if the codes are not met.
Langlade County does have some variance provisions, but does not require the extra paperwork if water runoff is diverted away from the lake or stream by means such as a French drain, rain garden or other method.
“We’re not forcing people to go through the variance process,” she said.
NRR115 is currently being debated by the Senate committee on the environment, chaired by Sen. Mark Miller.
Miller’s committee held a formal hearing on Sept. 10 and now is in the midst of a 30 day time frame to ask the DNR to make amendments.
If not, the rules will go into effect.
Holperin has said that Miller’s committee is unlikely to ask for major changes.
Liesa Lehmann, waterway protection section chief for the DNR’s bureau of watershed management, said that the DNR’s seven-year revision of NR 115 was motivated by a desire to update a 40-year-old code that needed greater clarity in a number of areas.
Lehmann said the DNR’s three aims in the revision were to improve the environmental protection of lakes and rivers, provide more flexibility for property owners seeking to improve their shoreline lots and reduce workloads for county zoning departments.
The revised version of NR 115 has already been reviewed by the state’s Natural Resources Board and it has the approval of major stakeholder groups on both sides of the issue spectrum. The Wisconsin Association of Lakes and the River Alliance of Wisconsin, two groups that generally represent the interest of increase environmental protection, have publicly come out in support of the revision and so have the Wisconsin Builders Association and the Wisconsin Realtors Association, two organizations that generally support the rights of developers and property owners.
|
|
|
