|
|||||||||||
|
|
PREVIOUS ARTICLE | FRONT PAGE | NEXT ARTICLE
Effort to Update Shoreland Protection Rules Enters New Phase: Groups to Focus on Areas Criticized in Original Proposal By Toni Herkert, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wisconsin�s efforts to update its 38-year-old statewide shoreland protection standards entered a new phase in summer 2006. Department of Natural Resources staff finished reviewing the 12,000 citizen comments received during and after public hearings in summer 2005 and in June reconvened the citizen advisory committee that had helped design the original proposal and had been meeting since the rewrite effort began in Fall 2002. The advisory committee heard summaries of the public comments on the original proposal to update Chapter NR 115 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, which governs such things as how far houses need to be set back from the water, lot sizes and limits on cutting down trees and other vegetation. The comments roughly fell into nine main areas with several common themes. The public indicated:
Importantly, the critical player in carrying out and enforcing the rules�the Association of Wisconsin County Code Administrators�said the rules were too complicated and unworkable. Changes are clearly needed to develop rules that work on the ground. Our goal in coming months will be working with members of the advisory committee, the County Code Administrators and other key stakeholders to address areas identified in the public comments. Three technical work groups will help us in this task. Two groups will consider options for �impervious surfaces� and �mitigation�. Impervious surfaces are surfaces (such paving, roofs, etc.) that prohibit water infiltration into soils. The group will consider whether an impervious surface control standard should replace the existing non-conforming structure standard. The standard might focus on where a structure is built on a shoreland lot, the impact of the location on the water resource, and opportunities to address those impacts. Mitigation is an action taken to minimize the impacts of development. The original proposal sought to let owners of grandfathered structures keep their structure indefinitely but required owners to take steps to mitigate or offset the impacts of any proposed changes to the structure. The mitigation focus group will try to refine this concept and devise performance standards that can realistically meet the standards over the long term. Once these groups have developed their options, a third group, comprised of County Code Administrators, will consider the revised code and make sure it is workable for the local officials charged with administering and enforcing the final rules. DNR Water Division Administrator Todd Ambs has said he hopes to refine the rules to be acceptable to all parties. He anticipates taking a revised proposal back to the Natural Resources Board in several months, with public hearings on a new proposal likely sometime in 2007.
For
more information contact:
|
||||||||||
