P&D Rejects OCLRA/OCCWA Discussion Request

 By Eric Rempala February 12, 2026- On February 2nd I penned an OCCWA article documenting the Oneida County P&D Committee's 4year saga of constructing a new Shoreland Protection Ordinance. In that article I documented the circuitous process the P&D Committee has taken. A process over the years that has virtually ignored public comments including over 100 public submissions during a Public Hearing in the spring of 2023.

A quote from that February article stated: 

"We at OCCWA still believe that a reasonable compromise can be had on SPO clear-cutting language as well as the landscaping definitions. The question becomes; would the P&D Committee even listen?"

With that in mind, OCCWA joined with Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association (OCLRA) to try to facilitate SPO language changes to address clearcutting in the shoreland Access Viewing Corridor (AVC). OCLRA has long advocated for a prohibition on clear-cutting in the AVC. In collaboration, our two groups came up with proposed language emphasizing Selective Cutting in the AVC. We believe our language is a fair alternative to clear-cutting and if nothing else would be a good starting point for a discussion with the P&D Committee on this issue.

On February 9th we sent our proposal to the P&D Committee requesting to be added as an agenda for their February 18th meeting. The email was as follows:

"Few would disagree that clear-cutting on shorelines is detrimental to our county’s water and habitat quality and to Northwoods scenic values. And yet, the Oneida County Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO) contains no prohibition on clear-cuts in access and viewing corridors (AVCs) on our lakes and rivers. We respectfully propose a remedy for that issue and would like to discuss it with the P&D Committee at its February 18 meeting.

Prohibitions on clear-cutting in AVCs have been proposed to the committee on previous occasions but have not been acted upon. One reason was concern that property owners would be deprived of water views. Another was that it would be too difficult to devise language that is “counter-ready” – clear and specific enough so that property owners can easily understand it, and county zoning personnel can explain and enforce it. To address these concerns, we propose the SPO include the following changes (underlined):

9.95 VEGETATION (NR 115.05(1)(c))

B. Activities Allowed within the Vegetative Buffer Zone (NR 115.05(1)(c)2)

1) Selective cutting Removal of trees and shrubs in the vegetative buffer zone to create an access and viewing corridor is allowed.

C. Tree Removal and Shore Cover Limitations. General. A special cutting plan allowing cutting greater than that set in 9.95 (B) (1), may be permitted by issuance of a Shoreland Alteration Permit.

Chapter 9 Article 10- Definitions

Select cutting: Tree and shrub cutting, providing that no more than 50% of trees 6 inches and greater at Diameter Breast Height (DBH) are removed.

We submit that such language is clearly “counter-ready,” since the removal of a specified percentage of vegetation is easily understood, explained and verified upon inspection. It would also enable property owners to create appealing water views while ensuring that water quality, wildlife habitat, and scenery are protected.

The preservation of our natural shorelines, and by extension our county’s tourism economy, is important enough so that language to prohibit AVC clear-cutting is sorely needed in the SPO.

We ask that this item be placed on the committee’s February 18 agenda for discussion.

Respectfully,

Eric Rempala, for Oneida County Clean Waters Action

Ted J. Rulseh, President, Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association, on behalf of and with approval of the OCLRA board of directors"

On February 10th we received a reply from the County:

"Chairperson Holewinski does not want this as a separate agenda item on February 18th.  It was somewhat discussed at the previous zoning meeting and the committee did not want to make any changes. Furthermore, OA # 13-2022 is scheduled for public hearing on February 24th and the language cannot change from what was published.   Mr. Holewinski suggests the Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association and the Oneida County Clean Waters Action group provide testimony at the public hearing."

To the County's credit, the description "somewhat discussed" was accurate. Though we did not expect changes to be made at the meeting on the 18th, we hoped to be added as an agenda item so that we could participate in a discussion with the P&D Committee regarding our proposed language.  By suggesting that rather OCCWA and OCLRA provide testimony at the February 24th Public Hearing, Chairman Holewinski guaranteed that our organizations could only provide 3 minutes of testimony of which the P&D Committee could not reply to. In other words, no discussion. 

With Chairman Holewinski's decision we are left to appeal to the public to help out with our messaging to the county. To that point we are asking those of you who believe select cutting in the AVC is a better option, to please share your opinion preferably in person on February 24th, but if that's not possible, then by email. 

OCLRA HEADS UP – Destructive Clear-cutting

As the bad wakeboat bill has dropped in the state legislature, another critical issue is brewing here in Oneida County.

There is a gaping hole in our county’s Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO) – one that threatens water quality, wildlife habitat, Northwoods scenic values, and the tourism economy.

As now written, the ordinance does not include a prohibition on clear-cutting in the access and viewing corridor (AVC) on waterfront properties. OCLRA is advocating an SPO amendment to remedy the issue. By way of background, the AVC is the 35% of a parcel’s water frontage where cutting of trees is allowed in the otherwise protected zone within 35 feet of the shoreline.

Clear-cutting in this corridor creates the prospect of ugly and long-lasting scars on our lakeshores. Our amendment would allow only selective cutting of trees in the AVC; it would permit removal of no more than 50% of trees in the AVC with trunk diameter 6 inches or larger.

OCLRA believes this provision would be easy for property owners to understand and for county zoning staff to explain and enforce. It would also allow homeowners to create appealing water views without undue environmental disruption.

In testifying at the public hearing, you are welcome add any of the following points to your personal perspectives on the issue. AVC clear-cutting:

• Degrades the scenery that appeals to residents and visitors and supports our tourism economy
• Destroys wildlife habitat in the rich and diverse shoreland zone
• Enables the flow of more nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants into the water
• Is inconsistent with the natural character of our waters and the Northwoods

We encourage all who advocate for the protection of our natural riverfronts and lakeshores to attend and testify at the February 24 hearing. If unable to attend, you can submit written comments to Oneida County Planning and Zoning at zoning@oneidacountywi.gov 

A strong show of support is essential if the proposed amendment is to have a chance of adoption. Failure to prohibit AVC clear-cutting invites the creation of more gaping holes in our shorelands.

The latest version of the SPO will go before a public hearing on Tuesday, February 24, at 1 p.m., at the county courthouse. We ask you to attend this hearing and give testimony supporting an amendment that would prevent AVC clear-cutting.

Respectfully,

Ted J. Rulseh

President, Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association

On behalf of and with approval from the OCLRA board of directors

February 24th Public Hearing link:

 https://www.oneidacountywi.gov/meetings/planning-development/planning-and-development-hearing-64

Emails in support of Select Cutting in the AVC should be sent before 10am February 20th to: Planning and Zoning Department Zoning@oneidacountywi.gov

When submitting comments, please remember to include your name and address plus any properties owned in Oneida County.

ZOOM OPTION:   ID: 955 858 8593   PASSCODE: 736130  PHONE: 312-626-6799   

Zoom is being offered as a convenience to view the meeting. Remote participation is not allowed. If Zoom functionality drops, the meeting will continue in person at the location listed above.  

You may also share your thoughts with the P&D Committee at:

Chairman Scott Holewinski sholewinski@oneidacountywi.gov

Supervisor Dan Hess Dhess@oneidacountywi.gov

Supervisor Mitch Ives Mives@oneidacountywi.gov

Supervisor Billy Fried Billyf@oneidacountywi.gov

Supervisor Bob Almekinder ralmekinder@oneidacountywi.gov

By Eric Rempala February 2, 2026- My apologies for those who don't speak county acronyms. The translation of the headline to this article is Oneida County Conservation and UW Extension (CUW) Committee's Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO) Access Viewing Corridor (AVC) clearcutting recommendations Dead on Arrival (DOA) at Planning and Development Committee (P&D).

At the January 21st P&D Committee meeting agenda item #10 was listed as:

"10. Discussion/decision concerning Ordinance Amendment #13-2022 to amend Chapter 9, Article 1, Section 9.11, Article 3, Sections 9.32 and 9.33, Article 5, Section 9.50, Article 9, Sections 9.90, 9.91, 9.92, 9.93, 9.94, 9.95, 9.97, and 9.99, Appendixes C through Q, and Article 10 Definitions. The committee will be discussing correspondence received from the Conservation and UWEX Education Committee. The committee will also be discussing updates, revisions, and all aspects of Chapter 9."

Any normal citizen reading the agenda item above would have no idea what the County is up to. Well, hopefully after reading this article you will have a better idea. For those of you not familiar with the Oneida County Shoreland Protection Ordinance revision saga, I'll share 3 paragraphs of the history from an OCCWA August 2025 article. "P&D Chooses Step Backwards on Shoreland Protection"

It all started in 2019/2020 with a clear-cutting issue on Two Sisters Lake in Newbold. A complaint was filed with the Oneida County Zoning Department and then County Supervisor Bob Thome got involved. Eventually, in the summer of 2021, Bob Mott as chair of County Conservation Committee, submitted 4 suggestions to revise County Code Chapter 9, Zoning & Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO). Much discussion was had including the county's Zoning Department potentially drafting revisions to the SPO. Sadly, nothing ever came of it.

In July of 2022, a Resolution for Ordinance Amendment #13-2022 authored by the Planning and Development Committee to amend Chapter 9, Article 8, Section 9.80 Zoning Administration appeared on a P&D committee meeting. The Amendment included changes recommended by construction contractors and landscapers. Putting the contractor and landscaper changes in place the P&D Committee eventually forwarded the Amendment to public hearing.

In a Spring 2023 Public Hearing, many residents shared concerns about the P&D's Resolution for Ordinance Amendment #13-2022 which was documented in a WXPR article Oneida County residents give mixed reaction to potential shoreland protection ordinance changes | WXPR. Survey ballots were created by Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association (OCLRA) for the hearing which the public was able use as a reference to share objections on the proposed SPO language. Despite high in person public participation including 114 publicly provided survey ballot submissions, the P&D made no changes to Amendment #13-2022. On top of rejecting all public hearing input on Amendment #13-2022, the P&D Committee rejected a recommendation by OCLRA to add language prohibiting clear-cutting in the 35% viewing corridor, a prohibition Vilas County had already adopted.

Returning to the present, the Oneida County Conservation and UW Extension Committee (CUW) decided to review the P&D's latest iteration of the SPO revision before it went to a Public Hearing. One of the language change recommendations the CUW came up with addressed the same issue the public has pushed back on through the whole 4-year process, clear-cutting in the Access and Viewing Corridor of shoreland properties.

Clear-cutting in the AVC has been a concern in Oneida County dating back to 2019. Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association (OCLRA) has led the charge on multiple occasions to promote improvements to the county's Shoreland Protection Ordinance; changes OCCWA has supported whole-heartedly. Improvements to the SPO would include being more protective of lake and river shoreline, which in turn would improve lake and river health. Banning any clearing of an AVC is not what is being sought, nor is reducing the permitted size limits of AVC's. What is being sought is reasonable AVC clear-cutting language, promoting an AVC that falls somewhere between an old growth forest and a golf course putting green from the house to the beach.

With that in mind, the CUW Committee went to work on crafting recommendations for the P&D Committee to consider before the SPO revisions were sent to public hearing which is the final step before going to a County Board vote. Having attended nearly all of the CUW meetings in the past two years, I can say the CUW Committee has done a fantastic job of thoughtfully considering conservation issues for the county. The Committee is comprised of County Supervisors Colette Sorgel, Linnaea Newman, Lenore Lopez, Chris Schultz, and Rob Jensen.

It was not surprising to many that the CUW Committee came back with a recommendation of more protective clear-cutting language than the P&D's version. The CUW brought a more balanced approach of select clear-cutting in the AVC, still allowing for an AVC but not allowing 300ft of shoreline to be clearcut all the way back to the home. One might argue that the CUW may have gone too protective, but certainly there would be the opportunity to discuss the differences and compromise with the P&D Committee at their aforementioned January 21st meeting.

Having attended that January 21st P&D meeting, I can tell you that no discussion between the CUW and the P&D took place. With CUW members Newman and Jensen in attendance, County Conservationist Michele Sadauskas of the Oneida County Land and Water Department (OCLW) shared an initial statement related to potential clear cutting language changes which the CUW Committee had earlier sent by letter to the P&D Committee for consideration. Sadauskas' initial statement was described as follows in the meeting minutes:

"Sadauskas noted that previous attempts to include clear cutting language did not advance beyond the Planning & Development Committee, which believed such provisions might conflict with DNR statues. However, multiple other counties have successfully implemented clear cutting prohibitions. Sadauskas presented two options for potential ordinance language. Option 3a allows select removal of trees and prohibits cutting trees larger than 4 inches diameter breast height. Option 3b includes the same provisions as option 3a, with an additional clause prohibiting landscaping activities involving filling, grading, and other land-disturbing actions."

Additionally, Sadauskas shared the CUW Committee's opinions on the P&D's SPO changes to landscaping definitions. She related that the CUW thought the definitions needed to be clearer. Also described in the meeting minutes Sadauskas questioned ambiguity in the P&D's current proposed landscaping language.

"P&D has proposed including ‘landscaping’, defined as the improvement of land appearance through planting trees, shrubs, or grasses, or by altering ground contours in the SPO. Sadauskas expressed concern that this definition is overly subjective and broad, potentially allowing for extensive land disturbance, including the use of bulldozers. This ambiguity has led to increased discussion around the need for clearer guidelines."

When Sadauskas asked if she should take a seat at the P&D meeting table to discuss the CUW recommendations, no invitation was offered by the P&D Committee. Instead, the P&D Committee participated in a short discussion amongst themselves pointing out some extremely rare instances where the CUW language might be an issue. That discussion was mostly led by Supervisor Almekinder who owns a construction company in Minocqua. In short order, the P&D Committee unanimously rejected the CUW recommendations without even discussing the landscaping language concern.

We at OCCWA still believe that a reasonable compromise can be had on SPO clear-cutting language as well as the landscaping definitions. The question becomes; would the P&D Committee even listen? Considering the P&D's SPO history provided, perhaps that question has already been answered.

The next to last chance for public input on the P&D's SPO language will be at the February 24th Public Hearing. The agenda for that Public Hearing on the Shoreland Protection Ordinance has been posted  Planning and Development – Hearing – Oneida County, WI , though you would never know it by the description.

By Eric Rempala October 25, 2025- The Oneida County's Conservation and UW Extension Committee's October 13th meeting was chock full of Clean Water issues. My compliments to Land and Water personal who provided the meeting minutes in a reader-friendly version 2025-October-13-CUW-Draft.pdf.  It never ceases to amaze me the number of issues the committee addresses, all in an effort to promote conservation and help keep the county on the right-side of environmental issues. In addition to the meeting minutes, Beckie Gaskill provided excellent coverage of the October 13 meeting for the Northwoods River News. Beckie's efforts are greatly appreciated as well as the River News providing free access to the article which can be viewed at The Northwoods River News

The number one issues in OCCWA's hearts but #10 on the agenda was Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO) 9.95, 9.97, and Article 10. This is the very Shoreland Protection issue which we at OCCWA addressed with in an August 31st post, "P&D Chooses Step Backwards on Shoreland Protection", which can be viewed by simply paging down on our homepage. In our August 31 article we shared concerns about the Oneida County P&D Committee's latest iteration of their proposed SPO. The language of concern is clear-cutting being allowed in the shoreline Access and Viewing Corridor (AVC) and unclear language on landscaping in the AVC.

Clear-cutting in Access and Viewing Corridor

Clear-cutting in the AVC has been a concern in Oneida County dating back to 2019. Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association (OCLRA) has led the charge on multiple occasions to promote improvements to the county's Shoreland Protection Ordinance, changes OCCWA has supported whole-heartedly. Improvements to the SPO would include being more protective of lake and river shoreline, which in turn would improve lake and river health. Banning clearing of an AVC is not what is being sought, nor is reducing the permitted size. What is being sought is reasonable AVC clear cutting language. Promoting an AVC somewhere between an old growth forest and a golf course putting green from the back deck to the beach.

 
With that in mind, County Conservationist Michele Sadauskas of the Oneida County Land and Water Department (OCLW) shared comments and potential clear cutting language changes which the Conservation Committee agreed to forward to the P&D Committee for consideration. The proposed language is quoted from the meetings minutes.

"Sadauskas noted that previous attempts to include clear cutting language did not advance beyond the Planning & Development Committee, which believed such provisions might conflict with DNR statues. However, multiple other counties have successfully implemented clear cutting prohibitions. Sadauskas presented two options for potential ordinance language. Option 3a allows select removal of trees and prohibits cutting trees larger than 4 inches diameter breast height. Option 3b includes the same provisions as option 3a, with an additional clause prohibiting landscaping activities involving filling, grading, and other land-disturbing actions."

Additionally, landscaping definitions need to be more clear

In another quote from the meeting minutes Michele Sadauskas related ambiguity in the P&D's current proposed landscaping language being a concern.

"P&D has proposed including ‘landscaping’, defined as the improvement of land appearance through planting trees, shrubs, or grasses, or by altering ground contours in the SPO. Sadauskas expressed concern that this definition is overly subjective and broad, potentially allowing for extensive land disturbance, including the use of bulldozers. This ambiguity has led to increased discussion around the need for clearer guidelines."

We at OCCWA are 100% in agreement on the ambiguity of the landscaping language being a concern. In our August 31 article we raised concerns about the term contouring. What exactly does contouring mean? Does that mean bulldozers plowing shoreline? What is needed is clear language defining landscaping including definitions. Without clear language and definitions, how can landowners and the Oneida County's Land and Water department know what is and is not allowed? Understandably, adding more details makes the process more difficult but it is necessary to avoid all the time, effort and money that results from not having clearly understandable rules. Ted Rulseh of OCLRA also touched on the necessity of practical and enforceable language with a statement.

"OCLRA is advocating for the inclusion of such language and believes this represents a significant gap in the ordinance and maintains that clear cutting should not be permitted in that zone. They acknowledge that adding language that is both practical and enforceable is a challenge, but it is not a good reason to avoid adding it." 

Next step will be consideration of proposed language by P&D Committee

The Conservation Committee agreed to forward the proposed changes as presented by the OCLW to the P&D Committee for consideration. Currently, the proposed P&D Shoreland Protection Ordinance language has been sent to the DNR for review. Differences between the County and the DNR on the proposed SPO language were touched on in our August 31 article, and the DNR review may result in more alterations. It is expected that once the DNR review returns in 4 to 8 weeks, that the P&D Committee will look at the OCLW proposals and incorporate them into the final SPO which then would go to Public Hearing. The final SPO version from Public Hearing would then be forwarded to the County Board for vote.

OCCWA will stay on top of any developments with the hope that the final SPO will be something we can support. It may be necessary that public input will be required when the final version of the SPO is scheduled for public hearing.

 
Oneida County Cost Share Projects 

Shoreland protection was not the only item on the October 13 agenda. A review of the county's cost share projects for 2026 as well as those accomplished in 2025 were shared among other things.

a. 2026 Project Approvals

Michele Sadauskas presented a series of proposed conservation projects for the upcoming year and requested Committee approval to proceed.

• 01 Town of Schoepke Culvert/Stream Crossing:  Significant erosion and a deteriorating culvert were noted.
• 02 Washburn Lake – Johnson:  Led by Boismenue, this site features a heavily eroded shoreline with minimal vegetation. 
• 03 Romsa – Pelican Lake:  A planting buffer will be added to enhance shoreline protection. Property owners are supportive and aim to serve as role models for native buffer implementation. 
• 04 Baguhn – Lake Nokomis:  An aging concrete block seawall will be removed and replaced with rock riprap with plantings behind.

b. 2025 Project Completion:

• 01 Town of Newbold Culvert/Stream Crossing: The undersized culvert was replaced due to severe deterioration. The area was replanted with annual rye and a pollinator mix.  
• 02 Wendt – Wisconsin River: The bank was collapsing with ongoing land loss due to erosion. Installed 100 feet of rock riprap and six root wads angled upstream to stabilize the shoreline, provide habitat, and protect against ice.
• 03 Bur – Rhinelander Flowage: Installed a soil-filled bag wall to create a more natural, vegetated shoreline. Planted native vegetation in front of the property and seeded with no-mow grass and a pollinator bee lawn  mix.

By Eric Rempala August 31, 2025- (Photo Credit, Len Hyke) The impetus to review and rewrite the Oneida County Shoreland Protection Ordinance began way back in 2020. It was an extremely aggressive clear-cutting on the shoreline of Two Sisters Lake that started the conversation. It was the voiced concerns of citizens that contributed to the long and drawn-out process of rewriting the county's Shoreland Protection Ordinance. So far, the county's P&D Committee has decided to rewrite the ordinance making it less, rather than more protective. The public still has a chance to change that decision.

 
Creation of Wisconsin NR115
In 2010 Wisconsin's legislature created NR115. The purpose of NR115 was to overhaul the state's shoreland zoning rules. The amendments aimed to balance the protection of water quality, habitat, and scenic beauty with the property rights of landowners. The new regulations for nonconforming structures and the introduction of standards for impervious surfaces and mitigation were adopted, and those regulations set Wisconsin's State shoreland protection minimums. Counties were still afforded the ability to set more protective standards if so desired, and many did.

2015 State of Wisconsin Act 55 neuters counties powers
In 2015 Wisconsin 2015 Act 55 significantly changed shoreland zoning by transforming the state's NR 115 administrative rules from minimum standards to uniform standards, preventing counties from enacting ordinances more restrictive than these standards on specific issues like buffer zones and viewing corridors, but also exempted certain artificial drainage structures from shoreland zoning. And just like that, Wisconsin Shoreland Protection minimums became Wisconsin Shoreland Protection maximums.

NR 115 & Act 55 how the legislature engineered a step backward for shoreland protection. Link:  18._shoreland_zoning_reversal.pdf

Oneida County revisits Shoreland Protection Ordinance 
It all started in 2019/2020 with a clear-cutting issue on Two Sisters Lake in Newbold. A complaint was filed with the Oneida County Zoning Department and then County Supervisor Bob Thome got involved. Eventually, in the summer of 2021, Bob Mott as chair of County Conservation Committee, submitted 4 suggestions to revise County Code Chapter 9, Zoning & Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO). Much discussion was had including the county's Zoning Department potentially drafting revisions to the SPO. Sadly, nothing ever came of it.

It wasn't until March of 2022 that shoreland protections resurfaced. A March 29th County P&D Committee meeting was held with the sole purpose of public comment related to Article 9 of Chapter 9 the Oneida County Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance. It related to all aspects of the ordinance including administration, permits, forms and fees.  The minutes ONEIDA COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING told a story. Multiple landscapers and construction contractors attended and raised concerns such as retaining walls being allowed 0-35ft from shoreline, designating retaining walls as being effective for water runoff and erosion control, and allowing patios instead of boathouses. Below are two Distinctly different public comments from the meeting minutes.

"Tom Jerow, Oneida County Property Owner spoke – need to find a balance for homeowners while protecting water. Believes we will have problems in the future if grass lawns take over shore areas, native vegetation retains more soil and water than grass lawns. Education program for owners showing the benefits of native vegetation would be helpful. Zoning should be about water quality not aesthetics. Should be more restrictions of what type of vegetation is allowed in the access and viewing corridor."

"Gregg Walker, Lakeland Times spoke – there are too many regulations that make it hard for local landscapers. Believes contouring prevents more runoff than native species. Rules are being overly restricting, need to find common ground with landscapers."

In July of 2022, Resolution for Ordinance Amendment #13-2022 authored by the Planning and Development Committee to amend Chapter 9, Article 8, Section 9.80 Zoning Administration appeared on a P&D committee meeting. The Amendment included changes recommended by construction contractors and landscapers. With those changes in place the P&D Committee forwarded the Amendment to public hearing.

Many residents shared concerns during the Spring of 2023 public hearing process Oneida County residents give mixed reaction to potential shoreland protection ordinance changes | WXPR. In fact, public hearing survey ballots were created by Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association (OCLRA) which the public was able use as a reference to share objections on the proposed SPO language. Despite high public participation in person and by 114 survey ballot submissions, the P&D made no changes to Amendment #13-2022. On top of rejecting all public hearing input on Amendment #13-2022 language, the P&D Committee refused to consider a proposed recommendation by OCLRA to ad language calling to not allow clear-cutting in the 35% viewing corridor that shoreline owners are permitted. Clear-cutting in the viewing corridor language that our neighbors in Vilas County have already adopted. 

Objections still stand on Amendment #13-2022 for Public Hearing coming this fall
Two and half years after the first public hearing on Amendment #13-2022, the P&D Committee will be scheduling another public hearing this fall. Much of the delay has come from the P&D Committee hiring a lawyer to contest the DNR's rejection of language in the proposed ordinance not conforming to Wisconsin's NR115. That non-conforming language included stairways to boathouse roofs, retaining walls in the 75ft shoreline buffer, and concrete aprons between boathouses and the Ordinary High-Water Mark. The P&D Committee has decided to go to public hearing despite their lawyer and the DNR's discussions yet to be resolved.

Many, of the objections remain from the Spring of 2023 public hearing. As it would be too difficult to cover all the objections, below we are sharing those that are most concerning. Listed concerns from Survey Ballot for Shoreland Protection Ordinance Amendment #13-2022 Public Hearing: March 29, 2023.

1. 9.11 A.1. Strikes line requiring setback between septic tanks and soil absorption systems from lakes and other water courses. (recommend oppose) This is simply one of the overarching goals stated in the purpose of the underlying ordinance. There are no setbacks attached to this in this part of the ordinance. However, it makes sense to keep this line in and state that the county wants septic tanks and soil absorption systems to be regulated for setback. This impacts water quality through seepage of failing systems. It should remain in the ordinance as a guiding principle.
2. 9.94 C.1.c. Reduced Principal Structure Setback when buildings are on both adjacent properties (setback averaging). Strikes line on existing principal structures on adjacent properties located less than 75 ft from OHWM. (recommend oppose) This removes the requirement that the setback may be averaged when BOTH adjacent properties have structures that are less than 75 ft from OHWM. This is “setback averaging”. Under the original, if one of the adjacent structures was at 75 or more, then you could not use averaging, you must use 75 ft setback from OHWM. The change allows for a looser restriction on reduced setback.
3. 9.94 C.1.e. Reduced Principal Structure Setback. Strikes line prohibiting future expansion for principal structures that were permitted reduced setback, per Section 9.99C. (recommend oppose) With the change in Ch 9 Article 10 definition of Building Footprint, this allows the structure to be expanded by counting things like balconies, chimneys, decks, etc. in the area between 35 ft and 75 ft of the OHWM.
4. Article 10 Definitions. Revises definition of building footprint. Include now balconies, chimneys, porches, decks, fireplaces, eaves. An attempt to expand footprint. (recommend oppose) As noted, this is an attempt to use appurtenances to expand or encroach beyond the principal structure’s footprint when dealing with reduced setbacks. It adds extra square footage of a building when remodeling or replacing.
5. 9.94 D.  Improvements. Entire section stricken. Portion that consolidates with exempt structure language (recommend support) Part of the consolidation of the General Construction Permit and the Shoreyard Alteration Permit. It is consistent with earlier portions of the amendment. However,…..  Portion that removes vegetation protections/provisions language. (recommend oppose) In the consolidation, the fundamentals of keeping the area vegetated, especially the Access and Viewing Corridor, environmentally sensitive areas, the cutting of trees and shrubs. This is an aesthetic issue as well as potentially impacting water quality. It should remain.

Notes:

Items #2 thru #4 are three examples of seven changes to the SPO that allow for placing buildings closer to the shoreline by adding convoluted setback averaging language. Any changes to setback averaging that allows buildings closer to the shoreline is a rollback of current water protection.

Item #5 is directly related to OCLRA's efforts to have Oneida County adopt Vilas County's more protective viewing corridor language. The reason for OCLRA's efforts are summed up by their president, Ted Rulseh.

"This should be illegal. The SPO does not prohibit clear-cutting within the Access and Viewing Corridor, which can encompass 35% of the width of a waterfront lot. Clear-cutting destroys natural scenery, removes critical habitat, and creates a pathway for runoff pollution. Vilas County and other counties prohibit clear-cutting in the Access and Viewing Corridor. Oneida County should also enact protections for this ecologically and aesthetically significant zone. Language on preserving vegetation in sensitive areas should be retained. The amended SPO removes a section on the fundamentals of persevering vegetation (for example, limiting the cutting of trees and shrubs) in near-shore areas, especially the AVC. This section should be restored, as preserving vegetation has benefits for scenic values and water quality."

Despite the P&D Committee's initial refusal, we recommend supporting another effort to accomplish this in the upcoming fall public hearing. We at OCCWA rank OCLRA's clear-cutting in viewing corridor recommendation as a top priority for residents to share input to the county pertaining to proposed SPO changes.