PHOTOS: goto 10 OCT -01 - 2006
picture# HPIM1505jpeg
picture# HPIM1505jpeg
10 Things Owners of Waterfront Homes Should Know About The Proposed Changes to Wisconsin’s Shoreland Zoning Regulations The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is proposing new changes to the state’s shoreland zoning regulations (NR 115). These new changes attempt to protect water quality, wildlife, and natural scenic beauty around our water resources, but do so by placing stricter standards on new development and construction within 300 feet of the water. As a result, the use and value of waterfront property will be impacted (positively or negatively). Below is a list of 10 proposed changes that will have the most significant impact on owners ofvacant property. 1. New impervious surface standards will limit the size of new homes and remodeling projects within 300 feet of the water. For existing homes within 300 feet of the water, no more than 15% of the lot can be covered in impervious surfaces (concrete, black top, footprint of structure, etc.). This includes roof tops, sidewalks, driveways, patios, and any other surface that will not allow water to infiltrate the ground. The impervious surface limit is raised to 20% of the entire lot if the property owner meets mitigation standards established by the county. (Note – this provision is triggered only when an existing structured is expanded or replaced.) Example – On a typical 10,000 sq. foot lot (65’x154’), no more than 20% of the lot can be covered with impervious surfaces (w/ mitigation). This means that only 2,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface is allowed. If you assume that the average driveway is 200 sq. ft. (25’x8’), this means that you have 1,800 sq. ft. to build a house, garage, driveway, patio and other impervious surfaces. (Note – a driveway, patio and sidewalk can be pervious if designed using the appropriate materials. However, these materials can be expensive.) 2. Homes located between 35 ft. and 75 ft. of OHWM (nonconforming structures) can be expanded vertically as long as the expansion does not exceed the 20% impervious surface limit. Also, these homes may be expanded horizontally if: (a) there is not a “compliant building location” (at least 30 feet deep and meets setback requirements) on the property; (b) the expansion is no closer to the water; (c) mitigation requirements are met; and (d) the expansion does not exceed 20% impervious surface limit. 3. New homes and additions cannot be more than 35-feet high. All residential structures within 300 feet of the OHWM must be no taller than 35 feet. This applies only to structures constructed (or expanded) after the effective date of the rule. The rule does not specify where the height must be measured from (the road, lowest point on the lot, base of the structure), so it is seemingly left to the counties to make this determination. 4. Homes located closer than 35 ft. from the OHWM (nonconforming structures) cannot be expanded. A prohibition on expansion will limit the usability of the home and could impact the value. By prohibiting any expansion of these structures, the rule effectively requires the house to be torn down and rebuilt behind the setback if the property owner wants to increase the size of the home. |
5. A nonconforming structure may be completely replaced under some circumstances. A nonconforming structure may be replaced (torn down and rebuilt), if (a) no compliant building location (behind setbacks and at least 30 feet deep) exists on the lot; (b) the structure is not located between 35 feet and the OHWM (Note – if the nonconforming structure is located between 35 feet and the OHWM, the structure can be rebuilt if it is rebuilt in the most compliant building location possible, and all other requirements are met); (c) the replacement structure has the same footprint (no bigger); and (d) mitigation requirements are met. 6. Unlimited maintenance and repair of ALL nonconforming structures is allowed. Nonconforming structures are allowed to be maintained and repaired without any limits on the amount of maintenance and repair. 7. Setbacks cannot be reduced unless the lot would otherwise be unbuildable. The 75-foot setback may be reduced (i.e., buildings can be built closer to the water than 75 feet) only if, among other things, there is no other place on the lot to build a home or building that is 30 feet deep. Under current law, the setback may be reduced if existing development pattern exists (i.e., if the surrounding properties are built closer to the water) 8. New mitigation requirements are triggered when setback and impervious surface standards are not met. Property owners must perform mitigation if they want to exceed the impervious surface standards or expand existing nonconforming structures. All mitigation must be proportional to the anticipated impacts of the project. Mitigation standards will be established by the counties, but must meet goals established by the DNR including controlling rainfall runoff to the maximum extent practicable. 9. New vegetation and removal requirements will create smaller views to water for some lots. Within 35 feet of the water, vegetation can be removed only within the “view and access corridor.” “View and access corridor” is defined as “40 ft. or 30% of lot width at OHWM (whichever is less) for lots with 200 ft. of frontage or less” or “20% of lot width at OHWM for lots with more than 200 ft of frontage.” The limits on tree removal are more restrictive than current law. Lots with less than 150 ft of frontage will have a smaller access corridor through which they can view and access the water. For example, a 65-foot wide lot, would now have only a 19.5 foot view access corridor, rather than 30 feet. (Note – this provision is triggered when nonconforming structures are expanded or when conforming structures are expanded/replaced and the impervious surface standards are exceeded). 10. Dry boathouses over 250 square feet are prohibited. All dry boat houses above 250 square feet are prohibited. (Note – Wet boat houses are regulated by Chapter 30 of the Wisconsin Statutes, not NR 115.) |
10 Things Owners of Vacant Waterfront Property Should Know About The Proposed Changes to Wisconsin’s Shoreland Zoning Regulations The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is proposing new changes to the state’s shoreland zoning regulations (NR 115). These new changes attempt to protect water quality, wildlife, and natural scenic beauty around our water resources, but do so by placing stricter standards on new development and construction within 300 feet of the water. As a result, the use and value of waterfront property will be impacted (positively or negatively). Below is a list of 10 proposed changes that will have the most significant impact on owners of vacant property. 1. New impervious surface standards will limit the size of new homes and remodeling projects within 300 feet of the water. For all new construction within 300 feet of the water, no more than 10% of the lot can be covered in impervious surfaces (concrete, black top, footprint of structure, etc.). This includes roof tops, sidewalks, driveways, patios, and any other surface that will not allow water to infiltrate the ground. The impervious surface limit is raised to 20% of the entire lot if the property owner meets mitigation standards established by the county. Example – On a typical 10,000 sq. foot lot (65’x154’), no more than 20% of the lot can be covered with impervious surfaces (w/ mitigation). This means that only 2,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface is allowed. If you assume that the average driveway is 200 sq. ft. (25’x8’), this means that you have 1,800 sq. ft. to build a house, garage, driveway, patio and other impervious surfaces. (Note – a driveway, patio and sidewalk can be pervious if designed using the appropriate materials. However, these materials can be expensive.) 2. New lots must be bigger for all new single-family and commercial development. Under the proposed changes, all buildable lots must be (a) a minimum of 20,000 square feet, and (b) at least 100 feet wide at the OHWM and the building setback line (75 ft. from OHWM). Current law allows sewered lots to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet with a minimum width of 65 feet (can be measured anywhere). (Unsewered lots must be 20,000 square feet and 100 feet wide).This will result in larger, more expensive lots (serviced by sewer) that even fewer Wisconsin residents will be able to afford. |
3. New homes cannot be more than 35-feet high. All residential structures within 300 feet of the OHWM must be no taller than 35 feet. This applies only to structures constructed after the effective date of the rule. The rule does not specify where the height must be measured from (the road, lowest point on the lot, base of the structure), so it is seemingly left to the counties to make this determination. 4. Counties may establish smaller minimum lot-size requirements for multi-family and planned-unit developments. Counties may create smaller lot size requirements for multifamily development. Also, counties may create smaller lot size requirements for planned residential developments in exchange for larger shoreland buffers, larger lot sizes or larger setbacks on those lots adjacent to the water. 5. #5 is missing. 6. Setbacks cannot be reduced unless the lot would otherwise be unbuildable. The 75-foot setback may be reduced (i.e., buildings can be built closer to the water than 75 feet) only if, among other things, there is no other place on the lot to build a home or building that is 30 feet deep. Under current law, the setback may be reduced if existing development pattern exists (i.e., if the surrounding properties are built closer to the water) 7. New mitigation requirements are triggered when setback and impervious surface standards are not met. Property owners must perform mitigation if they want to exceed the impervious surface standards or expand existing nonconforming structures. All mitigation must be proportional to the anticipated impacts of the project. Mitigation standards will be established by the counties, but must meet goals established by the DNR including controlling rainfall runoff to the maximum extent practicable. 8. New vegetation and removal requirements will create smaller views to water for some lots. Within 35 feet of the water, vegetation can be removed only within the “view and access corridor.” “View and access corridor” is defined as “40 ft. or 30% of lot width at OHWM (whichever is less) for lots with 200 ft. of frontage or less” or “20% of lot width at OHWM for lots with more than 200 ft of frontage.” Current law allows trees and The limits on tree removal are more restrictive than current law. Lots with less than 150 ft of frontage will have a smaller access corridor through which they can view and access the water. For example, a 65-foot wide lot, would now have only a 19.5 foot view access corridor, rather than 30 feet. 9. Vegetation can be removed outside of view and access corridor only in limited circumstances. Vegetation cannot be removed outside of view and access corridor (w/in 35 of the OHWM), unless the vegetation qualifies as one of the following: (a) exotic or invasive species; (b) damaged vegetation; (c) vegetation that must be removed to control vegetation; or (d) Vegetation that poses imminent safety hazard. Under current law, trees and shrubs can be removed as long as the area is not clear cut. 10. Dry boathouses over 250 square feet are prohibited. All dry boat houses above 250 square feet are prohibited. (Note – Wet boat houses are regulated by Chapter 30 of the Wisconsin Statutes, not NR 115.) |
Molony REAL ESTATE 377 CLARK STREET PO BOX 194, LODI, WI 53555 608-592-7306 & 608-445-8464 Website: MolonyRealEstate.com Email: MolonyRealEstate@Yahoo.com |
Molony Real Estate 377 CLARK STREET PO BOX 194, LODI, WI 53555 608-592-7306 & 608-445-8464 Website: MolonyRealEstate.com Email: molonyrealestate@Yahoo.com |
Green Bay Press-Gazette (WI) (06/10/09) Richmond, Todd Under revisions to Wisconsin's waterfront building regulations recently announced by state environmental officials, shoreline property owners would be required to limit the size of new driveways, decks and roofs. This marks the first major redraft of the state's shoreline building standards in over four decades. The changes underscore how development around Wisconsin's rivers and lakes has shifted from family cottages to multi-unit residential communities and year-round homes. Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources contends that more hard surfaces mean less vegetation and less food for the state's wildlife. In addition, more runoff contaminated with chemicals and fertilizer could seep into the water, resulting in pollution. Under the new rules, property owners would be forced to limit waterproof surfaces to 15 percent of a property's total area. Homeowners could increase that area to 30 percent if they restore native plants or reduce runoff. Those homeowners looking to expand a pre-existing structure within the setback would have to take measures to improve wildlife habitat and water quality. The plan has a broad swath of support, including the Wisconsin REALTORS® Association (WRA) and the Wisconsin Builders Association. Tom Larson, a lawyer for the WRA, acknowledges that it remains to be seen how the hard surface caps might affect homeowners. Still, he described the package as a fair compromise, particularly for owners of non-conforming structures. He added, "You can basically keep what you have." [Please note that Molony Real Estate does not necessarily agree with all of the decisions and comments from the Wisconsin Realtors Association, though we are active members.] Wisconsin Natural Resources Board Agenda & Meeting Dates Wis. to consider new shoreline building rules |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Shoreline Zoning: The Department of Natural Resources has proposed to update Natural Resources Rule 115 (NR 115 - http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr115.pdf and http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/dsfm/shore/news. htm). NR 115 outlines regulations from the DNR on what landowners can do with their property if they live on the shores of many lakes and rivers in the state. Administrative rules such as these are used when the legislature sets broad standards and the individual agency creates the specific rules. When changes are made to these rules the agency, such as the DNR, submits the changes to the appropriate legislative committee and the members have 30 days to object. This process is called passive review and NR 115 is being reviewed as we speak. Under the rule change, the State will impose tough standards for mitigation and impervious surface limits for all lots within 1,000 feet of a lake's ordinary high water mark and within 300 feet of a river, stream or the landward side of a flood plain. These changes could have drastic effects on the property rights and property values of those people who live on or near a lake or river. It is important that when changes such as these are made that the public have their voice heard loud and clear. We need to protect our vital natural resources while imposing as few restrictions as possible on those people who have paid to live on these lots. Contact the Assembly committee on Natural Resources and let them know your views on the proposed rule. You do not have to live near a body of water to understand the importance of this mandate. Wisconsin Assembly Members on the Committee on Natural Resources: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/W3ASP/CommPages/IndividualCommittee.aspx? COMMITTEE=Natural+Resources&HOUSE=Assembly |
NR115 enforces impervious surface standards and still allows labeling nonconforming structures to expand. 10/10 The problem is that nonconformity remains embedded in state statutes, and, unless the Legislature acts to modify or delete the language, it cannot be simply waved away by NR115. That's important because case law has determined that the intent of those statutes is to heavily regulate and control nonconforming property, and it's important because the statutes clearly define a nonconforming structure as any not meeting the requirements of a Shore Land Rule or Ordinance when such rule or ordinance is enacted. Simply put, no matter what the DNR's proposal “says” about the 50 percent rule, Counties can continue to enact that rule. What's more, the language of the Law continues to put all nonconforming Owners in legal jeopardy and subject to decisions - by the DNR, by Counties, by the Courts - to come into compliance, regardless of the “new and improved NR 115”. The proponents to NR115 say Property Owners will not have to do anything different UNLESS they propose a change on their property, like remodeling their home, expanding it, adding to or improving your driveway, or paving or covering more surfaces. Then, they WILL have to take steps to offset the potential impacts from their project (increased water runoff and pollutants, loss of plants to filter runoff and provide wildlife habitat, and impacts on their neighbors’ and lake and river users’ scenic views). When thy do this, they will have to engage in a “Mitigation Plan” – which is open to the discretion of the “DNR Regulator” who will give you a list of “Improvements” you have to make to your property and “Guidelines” you have to follow in order for you to make the changes you have planned. The Property Owner will also have to record the “Mitigation Plan” with the Registrar of Deeds and future owners of your property will have to continue your “Mitigation Plan” this plan also has to be attached to your Real Estate Condition Report when you sell your home. All the Fees and Hopefully prospective owners will like the plan and buy your property. Nonconformity remains the legally controlling concept in Shore Land Zoning; the new rule will actually add thousands of properties - perhaps tens of thousands of properties - to the nonconforming list. The DNR has been pushing for impervious surface standards since about 2005. Currently, the prevailing case law in Wisconsin holds that the presumption behind regulating nonconformity is to ultimately secure conformity. Otherwise, it makes no sense as a legal standard. Right now, suffice it to say, unless People quickly get moving, both by stopping this rule and then pressuring the Legislature to act, nonconformity as a tool -the DNR will use to steal your land - will grow and grow. The implications are enormous. Using slick propaganda and carefully parsed language, the DNR and its allies are betting the people won't figure it all out until it's too late. **********
Waterbody Classification Initiative” IMPORTANT: RE: Meetings for Shoreland Zoning /aka/”Dane County Waterbody Classification Initiative” The Dane County Waterbody Classification Initiative (also referred to as Shoreland Zoning) is a proposed program that could impact 57,000 properties in Dane County. It would impose new regulations, costs and procedures on all properties within the Shoreland zone. Some of the changes include: The Shoreland zone in our villages and cities would be extended from 75’ from the water to 1000’ from lakes and ponds and 300’ from rivers and streams. This includes Agricultural, Commercial and Residential, all properties will be subject to the Shoreland Mandates.
actions, but also keep an eye on the DNR proposal NR 115 and spread the word! Read this article: With NR115, DNR can score a Super Trifecta by Richard Moore Investigative Reporter, Friday, June 19, 2009 The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is poised to score a huge victory this summer when its long-cooking (and cooked up) revision of the state's Shoreland zoning code is ratified. If it is enacted (there would be a two-year lag period), the agency will have scored what can only be called a Super Trifecta with respect to its long-term goal of getting rid of nonconforming uses and structures. And enacted it will be, given the broad coalition the DNR has assembled for it. The DNR is crowing big time, and they have a right to, having lined up support not only from their environmentalist comrades-in-arms but from interest groups normally aligned with property-rights advocates, such as builders and Realtors. That broad, seeming consensus will give legislators who know better, or who should know better, public cover to side with the DNR. Sen. Jim Holperin, for example, pointed to unity for the proposal among "big groups" in explaining his own support. That so-called consensus is a mirage, by the way. If special-interest trade associations have sold out - these groups have to constantly keep their bread buttered with the agency - that's not so on the grassroots level. But the grassroots may have been lulled to sleep. If so, property owners in Shoreland areas had better wake up and focus on the rule and the deceptive way the DNR is selling it. Here's the Trifecta the DNR has lined up: 1) Despite a major public relations offensive to the contrary, the legal underpinnings of nonconformity remain in place; 2) not only that, but the DNR is expanding the concept, for the rule will add thousands of properties to the nonconforming list; and 3) the DNR - again, despite assertions to the contrary - has retained its long-term goal of getting rid of all nonconforming structures. Scary, but it's a DNR dream come true - tell people what they want to hear and buy off opposition, all the while expanding the agency's regulatory reach far from actual shorelines, and then ultimately bulldoze everything in their way. Trifecta!!! Let's examine each of the Trifecta's elements: 1. The DNR wants you to believe that nonconformity as a legal standard will never be used again as a weapon against property owners but has been tucked away for good, like waterways protection chief Liesa Lehmann Kerler's long-ago alias, Nesta. But nonconformity in fact remains a decisive concept in shoreland zoning, just like Ms. Nesta herself. To be sure, the spin doctors want you to think the notion of nonconformity is irrelevant. Indeed, they stress, the revised NR115 allows property owners to maintain their nonconforming homes within 75 feet of the ordinary high water mark, and to even expand and relocate those structures under certain conditions and by agreeing to mitigation. The new NR115 would also abandon the so-called 50 percent rule that limited work on nonconforming structures to 50 percent of their assessed values over their lifetime. To the DNR and the rule's supporters, all that makes nonconformity, at least practically speaking, a thing of the past. Tom Larson, an attorney with the Wisconsin Realtors Association, which is supporting the rule, pointed to that issue as the critical one for his group. "The biggest thing was the nonconforming structures," Larson told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. He told the Chicago Tribune the same thing, calling the proposal, according to the newspaper, a fair compromise, especially for owners of non-conforming structures. "You can basically keep what you have," he was quoted as saying. Here's how DNR secretary Matt Frank put it in a June 8 memo to the Natural Resources Board, which is taking up the proposal next week. "Past Department policy reflected the Wisconsin common law concept that the goal of zoning law when regulating nonconforming structures was to bring about ultimate compliance with the zoning ordinance. In most instances, this would require eventually removing existing structures within 75 feet of the ordinary high-water mark. This proposal recognizes that existing structures within the 75- foot setback usually were built in compliance with the standards in place at the time of construction, and property owners may have substantial investments in the improvements on their shoreland properties." The problem with all this posturing is that nonconformity remains embedded in state statutes, and, unless the Legislature acts to modify or delete the language, it cannot be simply waved away by NR115. That's important because case law has determined that the intent of those statutes is to heavily regulate and control nonconforming property, and it's important because the statutes clearly define a nonconforming structure as any not meeting the requirements of a shoreland rule or ordinance when such rule or ordinance is enacted. Simply put, no matter what the DNR's proposal says about the 50 percent rule, counties can continue to enact that rule. What's more, the language of the law continues to put all nonconforming owners in legal jeopardy and subject to decisions - by the DNR, by counties, by the courts - to come into compliance, regardless of the new and improved NR 115. Still, one might wonder, is that important, given the new flexibility the DNR is affording homeowners, not to mention its kinder, gentler attitude? You bet it is, and that brings us to the second element of the Super Trifecta: 2. Not only does nonconformity remain the legally controlling concept in shoreland zoning, the new rule will actually add thousands of properties - perhaps tens of thousands of properties - to the nonconforming list. Read Matt Frank's words and the other propaganda and one will get the distinct idea that nonconformity is mostly a term applied to homes within the 75-foot setback, but, as I pointed out above, nonconformity legally applies to any structure that does not meet the dimensional requirements of NR115. As it happens, the rule seeks to establish vigorous impervious surface standards, allowing only 15 percent of such surfaces on shoreland lots outright and up to 30 percent with mitigation. Those standards will apply to all lots and parcels in the shoreland zone. That's 1,000 feet from the OHWM of a lake, folks. Any structure that does not meet those standards will be nonconforming; that will be thousands and thousands. The DNR has been pushing for impervious surface standards since about 2005, but these are harsh and unrealistic, even by agency standards. Even the 2007 draft of the rule would have limited the application of impervious surface standards to properties within 300 feet of a lake OHWM, not to the entire shoreland zone. This is a major change. In effect, the DNR will have managed for the first time to secure broad regulatory powers on land hundreds and hundreds of feet from the OHWM of lakes. It will expand its power to control land use in community after community, especially in the North, and will even swallow some towns whole. Can you say Minocqua? OK, now for the Trifecta, the element that makes it all worthwhile for the DNR: 3) The agency - despite assertions to the contrary - has retained its long-term goal of getting rid of all nonconforming structures. How's that, Mister? That's not what the DNR says. That's not what the rule says. DNR officials say the exact opposite, in fact, basically that, in the words of Mr. Larson, folks can keep what they have. Well, that might be true right now, but, especially with the rule's expansion of nonconformity in the shoreland zone, for how long? Earlier in this column I quoted Mr. Frank's June 8 memo to the NRB explaining how the DNR had had a change of heart about nonconformity. Please reread that passage under element one above. As it turns out, Mr. Frank is quite the plagiarist. That language was lifted virtually word for word from Russell Rasmussen's presentation to the NRB in 2005, explaining that year's proposed NR115 draft. That version also included impervious surface standards and would have allowed nonconforming structures to expand. Incredibly, here's Mr. Rasmussen's words: "Past Department policy, based on Wisconsin common law, was the goal of regulating nonconforming structures in order to bring about ultimate compliance with the shoreland zoning ordinance," Rasmussen said on May 25, 2005, according to the NRB minutes of that meeting. "In most instances, this would require the removal of existing structures within 75 feet of the ordinary high- water mark. This proposal recognizes that these nonconforming structures usually were built in compliance with the standards in place at the time of construction, and property owners may have substantial investments in the improvements on their property." Pretty amazing, huh? The NRB must have thought Mr. Frank's memo was deja vu all over again. Interestingly enough, both Mr. Frank and Mr. Rasmussen added a concluding sentence to these paragraphs, explaining the ultimate impact of the so-called policy shift, and these in fact differed in their verbiage. To Mr. Rasmussen, the policy shift did nothing to change the DNR's final solution: "This proposal still has the goal of ultimate compliance, but recognizes that the timeline for compliance has been considerably extended." So, the rubber finally meets the road. The department was still going to remove those noncompliant structures; they just wanted to give homeowners some time to prepare. Mr. Frank wasn't so blunt in explaining the impact of the identical words: "While local governments may still include in their ordinances the goal of structure removal in the setback, the revised Department policy reflected in this proposed rule no longer seeks to require immediate removal of nonconforming structures under shoreland zoning law." More finesse, but is he really saying anything different than Mr. Rasmussen? What does 'immediate removal' mean? If the DNR is never going to seek the removal of these structures, why include the word 'immediate'? The bottom line is, the nature of the stolen language indicates that in the last sentence Mr. Frank merely changed up the wording to soften the real intent of what was being said. In 2005, though, it was laid out on the table. After all the PR and propaganda, it turns out local governments can still use the 50 percent rule and require removal, and, for its part, all the DNR will guarantee is that it won't seek 'immediate removal.' But what about next year, or the year after that, or the year after that? What might the agency do to the properties your children will inherit? Make no mistake about it, the prevailing case law in Wisconsin holds that the presumption behind regulating nonconformity is to ultimately secure conformity. Otherwise, it makes no sense as a legal standard. Here's how assistant attorney general JoAnne Kloppenburg put it in a March 2003 review of the state's nonconforming zoning law. "But, counties, and DNR, are not free to let them (nonconforming properties) continue unregulated," she wrote. "By statute, constitutional mandate, and common law (court decisions), nonconforming uses and structures cannot be extended, and they must be regulated and limited so as to disappear." As she said in reviewing one court case, "In sum, as the court said in Seitz II, the spirit of zoning is to restrict nonconforming uses and structures and to eliminate them as speedily as possible. While Wisconsin courts have protected the right of property owners to continue a nonconforming use or nonconforming structure for a reasonable period of time after new zoning ordinance provisions take effect, the courts have clearly held that the owner of a structure or property with a nonconforming use does not have the right to extend or change the nonconforming use (except to bring the property into compliance with current standards)." Hence, Mr. Frank's assurance about immediate removal; you can bet the DNR will decide what a reasonable period of time is. There is a whole lot more wrong with this rule - vague mitigation standards, natural scenic beauty requirements, the impervious surface regulations themselves- but I'll save those for the next edition. Right now, suffice it to say, unless people quickly get moving, both by stopping this rule and then pressuring the Legislature to act, nonconformity as a tool the DNR will use to steal your land will grow and grow. The implications are enormous. Using slick propaganda and carefully parsed language, the DNR and its allies are betting the people won't figure it all out until it's too late. They're betting they are going to score the Super Trifecta. |
| MOLONY REAL ESTATE does not always agree with WRA |
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Here is Dane County's Report after the Meetings for Shoreland
Zoning /aka/”Dane County Waterbody Classification
Initiative” - click here. 12/28/2009
Be sure to notice the POINTS SCHEDULE on pages 34-36 which like
paying for indulgences, has no real logic and can be applied unfairly.
Also note methods of MITIGATION if you are found non compliant with
the rules & regulations of the DNR on pages 37-45.
The very vague guideline from which the DNR Shoreland Zoning
Accessors work from is called the “precautionary principle”, the
definition is just as vague: “Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be
used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
prevent environmental degradation.”(UNCED, 1992) - pages 48-49.
Page 52 is missing, I do not know if that is on purpose or not.
*Please notice that there has been NO in depth research or Fiscal
Liability Report done to establish costs for manpower, technology,
communication and various additional permanent financial commitments
and long term repercussions on the Wisconsin Landowner and Taxpayer
because of this frivolously put together mandate.
within a certain distance from the edge of a navigable water. SB 301 States that if a county does not enact a Shoreland Zoning Ordinance or if the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) determines that the County has enacted an Ordinance that fails to meet certain standards, then DNR must adopt a Shoreland Zoning Ordinance for the County. This means that if the DNR doesn't like the mandates set by your County the DNR WILL override your County. |
Shoreland Zoning is not over!
They are only waiting for the 2010
Elections to get over and then it
will be back.
Keep on this!
They are only waiting for the 2010
Elections to get over and then it
will be back.
Keep on this!
Shoreland Zoning – Changes in
Rules
The new rules were reviewed by the
State legislative committees and
published by the DNR February 1,
2010.
Rules
The new rules were reviewed by the
State legislative committees and
published by the DNR February 1,
2010.