Oneida County moves closer to shoreland ordinance revisions

Oneida County is moving forward with shoreland ordinance revisions, some of which the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources says it won’t approve, but this week the county’s zoning director told the committee the agency had softened some positions in meetings with staff and outside counsel.

Zoning director Karl Jennrich informed committee members this week that outside counsel Larry Konopacki will be drafting ordinance language incorporating revisions backed by the committee — including some the DNR is opposed to — to discuss soon with the committee, possibly at its next meeting.

The decision to seek outside legal counsel came last year after the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) told the committee it would not certify certain proposed changes to the county’s shoreland ordinance that the committee had submitted to the agency for review.

That incensed some members of the committee who believe the DNR’s statutory interpretations do not necessarily align with legislative intent, and, more, other counties have been allowing — some through policy, some through code — some of the same provisions the DNR says it won’t certify in Oneida County.

The zoning committee hired Konopacki, a former attorney for the state legislature who was involved in the writing of the state’s shoreland statutes, to review the proposed ordinance amendments and relevant state statutes and administrative rules and provide the committee with a legal analysis of the proposed revisions or to provide language the DNR might find acceptable.

On March 1, Jennrich told the committee this week, he and assistant zoning director Todd Troskey, along with Konopacki and county corporation counsel Mike Fugle, met with DNR shoreland and water management specialist Dale Rezabek and DNR counsel to review the ordinance proposals. 

The DNR continues to oppose some of the county’s proposed changes, Jennrich said, reading from an email he sent to Konopacki.

One proposed change that the DNR has adamantly opposed in the past would consider boathouse stairs to be attached to a boathouse as part of the structure and thus calculated within the overall footprint. The DNR considers stairs to a boathouse roof to be a prohibited accessory structure.

However, Jennrich said, the DNR supports allowing multiple access and viewing corridors, even though some of its previous correspondence expressed opposition.

“Now they have changed their position that we can have multiple access and viewing corridors,” Jennrich said. “There could be multiple walkways as long as ‘they’re necessary to access the water and pier.’ Staff would have to make administrative decisions on what’s necessary to access.”

Jennrich said he believes the committee supports stairs and walkways in multiples and parallel to the water as long as they are farther than 35 feet from the water. Between zero and 35 feet, the zoning director said, the walkway would have to be in the access and viewing corridor.

Staff would have to figure out what is necessary, Jennrich said. 

The county’s position on retaining walls would need a legislative change, Jennrich added: “The committee would have to direct staff to reach out to local, state, and elected officials on this issue,” he said. 

In addition, if the county wants to treat an attached open deck as part of structure’s principal footprint, setbacks would have to be measured to the attached open deck, Jennrich asserted. 

“As I stated, I made the committee aware of this fact,” he said. “With that said, if an averaged setback dimension is determined, the principal structure along with all attached functional appurtenances could benefit from the average setback dimension.”

Jennrich said Konopacki believes he can have ordinance language by the next committee meeting or the meeting thereafter and also could attend to explain some of the concepts. Jennrich said he expected a lengthy and substantive discussion.

“We’ll start from the beginning, discuss the concept and discuss what the language should be,” he said. 

Committee chairman Scott Holewinski wanted to know about landscaping revisions. Complaints about the need for separate shoreland alteration permits helped spark the whole revision process, and the committee has indicated it would move to get rid of those separate permits and bake the landscaping into the cake of the overall permit.

The DNR originally opposed that language, too, Jennrich said, but they may have been confused about the county’s intentions.

“That [change] is in the process, it will be part of this package, and, yes, the Department of Natural Resources did have concerns regarding that,” he said. “But they didn’t say you couldn’t do it. They thought that there was no permit. But what the committee wants to do is, instead of having a separate shoreland alteration permit to address erosion or onsite erosion concerns, it was going to be built into the actual permit application.”

That streamlines the process, the committee has argued.

“So if you’re going to put in for a new home, on that permit we’re going to have to spell out what erosion control methods you have to take instead of a standalone permit,” he said. “And then we’re going to have to work out the details of some of this landscaping that may take place. … Hopefully we’ll be simplifying things to the satisfaction of the committee and the public.”

Jennrich said the committee wanted landscaping to take place within the building permit timeframe: “And then after that, if they didn’t get it done, they may have to come in for a separate shoreland alteration permit.”

Supervisor Bob Almekinder want to know, if Konopacki says the proposed county language meshes with legislative intent, would the county fight the agency?

Holewinski said the committee will listen to what Konopacki has to say and make a decision based on his comments, while Jennrich said Konopacki believes the county would be well positioned in any legal battle.

“He’ll (Konopacki) let you know that, yes, you may be getting a letter from the Department of Natural Resources that says that what you’re proposing is contrary [to its interpretation], but he believes we have good legal arguments and they’re going to have to make a political decision.”

Holewinski opined that the DNR had already changed its mind on several points.