By Patricia Bogumil
Local leaders know they’ve stated their case effectively about new state rules being considered for lake and river properties.
But whether their information will change any thinking in the state Department of Natural Resources remains a wait-and-see situation, to become known next month.
At issue are proposed changes – opposed by the County of Racine as well as some local townships – that many riparian owners in the west end are not aware of.
The proposed changes are in the DNR’s shoreland management program and outlined in Natural Resources Chapter 115 (NR 115) in the state’s administrative code.
Racine County and local officials have objected to the increased workload the changes will place on county planning and zoning staff for approval, oversight and permits – describing these as unfunded mandates.
“They’ll also cause, I think, considerable hardship for people who want to work on their lake lots, and what they’ll have to provide to the county in order to get permits,” explained Norway Town Chairman Jean Jacobson.
DNR Deputy Secretary Matt Moroney met in Ives Grove with local government leaders last month to consider their views on the proposed changes. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) helped set up the meeting.
Racine County hopes the information shared has convinced the DNR to exempt properties that are sewered from the impervious surface limits contained in the Rule, explained Julie Anderson, Director of Planning and Zoning for Racine County.
The ideas presented are an attempt to make the NR 115 proposal “more reasonable and sensible and more cost-effective,” explained Jacobson.
Moroney, in an email interview afterward, described the Ives Grove session as a “great meeting with a very open and candid dialogue.”
Moroney stopped short of expressing full support for the views coming from Racine County, but neither did he dismiss the idea of exempting sewered properties from the revised NR 115.
“The staff is in the process of finalizing the Rule at this moment and the sewered properties concept is being seriously considered for inclusion in the final package that will be presented to the Natural Resources Board,” said Moroney.
A main issue concerns the state’s definition of a “highly urbanized area.” Portions of lakes served by sewer in Racine County are not in the “highly urbanized area” definition, so the rules are inconsistent from lake to lake, explained Anderson.
Another issue concerns the added workload for county staff the proposed changes will bring. Unlike Racine County, many Wisconsin counties do not object to the added workload and added staffing costs.
“Many county zoning offices embrace the rules for the shoreland projects, because it adds work for their staffs,” explained Anderson. “Racine County does not share the ‘make work’ philosophy.”
Jacobson noted that some west-end lakes, like Browns Lake in Burlington, are pretty well developed.
But there are many cottages along the Fox River, she added, and also some summer cottages still on the Norway township lakes.
People who have plans to tear these down and build a new home are completely unaware of the restrictions being considered, said Jacobson.
“As local officials, we welcome development and encourage summer cottages to become year-round living,” she added. “It stabilizes the area, and we want to make sure the owners are able to do that.”
Local leaders are all very concerned about water quality remaining good and becoming even better, added Jacobson. “But when you have rules you need them to be sensible, workable and benefit everybody.”
-
-
-
-
-