County challenges state over Stacks Bay shoreland compliance

Oneida County is challenging the state’s position that it does not need to comply with local shoreland zoning ordinances or obtain local permits for work underway at the Stacks Bay overflow parking area, with county zoning director Karl Jennrich ordering state agencies to install erosion controls and contact the county within 10 days to discuss permit issues.

In a Feb. 23 letter to the Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Jennrich said the state had failed to respond to an earlier notice and warned that each day of noncompliance could constitute a separate violation subject to court action.

“The department sent an email dated January 22, 2026, to representatives of the state of Wisconsin, concerning the absence of any erosion control on the parking project on the above-described property,” Jennrich wrote in the Feb. 23 letter. “To date, there has been no response from any representatives from the state of Wisconsin.”

The county also would have required a shoreyard alteration permit, pursuant to the county code, Jennrich wrote.

Jennrich ordered the agencies to contact the department within 10 days.

“Furthermore, the department is requiring erosion control to be installed with at a minimum of silt fencing until spring weather conditions would allow for installment of the erosion control matting, ditch checks, and a tracking pad,” he wrote.

The dispute is the latest development in a debate about whether state agencies must comply with local shoreland zoning ordinances — a question that has festered for weeks as grading and site work continued at the project site without county permits or apparent erosion controls.

Jennrich wrote that it was his department’s responsibility to ensure that all uses of the real estate complied with the provisions of the county ordinance.

“On January 13, 2026, department staff conducted an onsite inspection and determined that approximately 27,500 square feet of earth has been disturbed,” Jennrich wrote in the letter. “Furthermore, there is no silt fencing, erosion matting, or tracking pad installed. It appears that the plan approval done by Robert E. Lee and Associates, Inc., dated October 1, 2025, showed that erosion control matting was supposed to be on certain slopes, and ditch checks were supposed to be in place, along with silt fencing and a tracking pad.”

But there was no silt fencing, erosion matting, or tracking pad installed, Jennrich wrote.

State relying on 1993 attorney general opinion

The state’s position, as previously reported by the Times, is based on a statute related to agency compliance with local standards and a 1993 attorney general’s interpretation of that statute issued by then–attorney general Jim Doyle.

Specifically, the statute states that state construction “shall be in compliance with all applicable state laws, rules, codes and regulations” but “is not subject to the ordinances or regulations of the municipality in which the construction takes place except zoning.”

While the language “except zoning” would seem to require the state to obtain local permits, the 1993 attorney general’s opinion interpreted that provision to apply only to agency construction projects supporting internal operations, such as an office building, and not to construction projects that provided or aided public access to outdoor recreational areas.

Under that interpretation, boat landing facilities and associated parking areas would be considered matters of statewide concern about ensuring public access and exempt from municipal zoning control.

“In my opinion, DNR is not subject to local zoning ordinances with respect to its construction of any building, structure, or facility whose purpose is to assure the general public access to outdoor recreational areas, rather than to facilitate the internal operations of DNR as a state agency,” Doyle wrote at the time.

The latest letter from Jennrich marks a turn from past county positions aligning with the state’s position. County corporation counsel Chad Lynch has previously told the Times that the county has long relied on that opinion.

“It is my understanding that for years Oneida County has relied on the AG opinion that you mention from the early ’90s for the reason for not requiring the DNR or DOA to get zoning permits within the shoreland zone,” Lynch wrote in a February 10 email.

Lynch also said he had not found case law overturning or meaningfully addressing the opinion.

Jennrich himself had earlier indicated he believed state projects were exempt from local permits.

“Bottom line, it is a state of Wisconsin project,” Jennrich wrote in a January 15 email. “I have always been led to believe … the state of Wisconsin is not required to get local permits.”

Jennrich has pointed to a March 30, 2006, opinion from then-corporation counsel Larry Heath that cited the 1993 attorney general’s opinion in concluding that Oneida County could not regulate a DNR boat landing project then underway.

“It was Larry’s belief that based on [the attorney general’s opinion] the county could not regulate the reconfiguration of the existing DNR Crescent Lake Boat Landing,” Jennrich told the Times.

The February 23 letter adopts a markedly firmer tone, explicitly asserting county jurisdiction and ordering corrective action.

Critics of the state’s position have long questioned whether exempting public-access projects from local zoning creates an uneven regulatory landscape.

While representing the Mercer Lake Association in 2014, attorney Bill O’Connor called attention to the legislature’s application of zoning laws to state projects. Significantly, he observed that then DNR secretary George Meyer had asked for the 1993 attorney general’s opinion after failing to get the legislature to exempt DNR boat launch facilities from local zoning authority. 

In correspondence concerning a Mercer Lake boat landing project, O’Connor argued that the legislature had expressly carved out specific exemptions from local zoning authority — such as for corrections facilities — suggesting that those enumerated exceptions constituted the entire intended universe of exemptions. As such, O’Connor asserted that claiming an exemption from local zoning permits would be legally risky.

“It is by no means clear that an ‘exemption by implication’ would survive court review,” O’Connor wrote at the time.

However, absent judicial challenge or legislative action, the 1993 attorney general’s opinion remains the operative interpretation guiding state agencies.

Richard Moore is the author of “Dark State” and may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.