Committee Forwards Proposal on Shoreland Clear Cutting
The County Conservation Committee to forward proposal on Shoreland Protection Ordinance.
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.
P&D Chooses Step Backwards on Shoreland Protection
Despite public input, Oneida County's Shoreland Protection Ordinance to be less protective.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
