Pine Needle Lawn

We received this email from one of the MLS boards we belong to. I wanted to post it and ask you for your feedback. Do you agree with this letter? Disagree? Why?

Please feel free to send us an email or leave a comment on this post with your thoughts.

–Start–

Hello RANW Brokers ~

I need your assistance with a Call To Action to all members. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is accepting public comments regarding their latest proposal for changes to the state shoreland zoning regulations until September 7, 2007.

After the public comment period, the DNR will tabulate how many people either support or oppose each of the provisions in this rule; this summary is then provided for informational purposes to the legislature.

Therefore, we need all agents, who are willing, to send in written comments to the legislature by the September 7, 2007 deadline. To assist members I have created a template letter that members can simply print and sign (please see attached).

The WRA and RANW have not yet taken formal positions on the rules. However, the memo incorporates talking points and other recommendations that have evolved during past discussion on these provisions. Therefore, members should carefully review the letter and feel free to make changes as they see fit.

We ask for your assistance, as the broker, in communicating this Call to Action to your agents as well as gathering the letters and mailing them to the DNR. Please either forward the letter to your agents, or print the letters off yourself and have agents review and sign them. Please note, that although groups of letters can be mailed together, each letter needs to be signed individually as opposed to one letter being signed by a group of agents.

Each office can send out their letters to:

Toni Herkert
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Watershed Management
PO Box 7921
Madison, WIÂ 53707

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

——————–

August 10, 2005

Ms. Toni Herkert
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Watershed Management
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WIÂ 53707

Re: Proposed Changes to NR 115

Dear Ms. Herket:

I am submitting the following written comments on the proposed changes to the state’s shoreland zoning regulations (Wis. Admin. Code § NR 115).

Provisions That I Support

NR 115.19(4)(a) Lots with Existing Principal Structures – Although many counties already allow unlimited maintenance and repair of the structure, clarification that this should be allowed is a positive and important change.

NR 115.11(2) & (3) Multifamily Residential Structures and Substandard Lot Size – The allowance of counties to develop smaller lot size requirements for multifamily and planned residential developments allows much needed flexibility at the local level as well as greater consistency to other local zoning ordinances.

Provisions That I Oppose

NR 115.11 (1)(a) Minimum Lot Size – Increasing the minimum lot size to 20,000 sq. ft. for all lots (including those provided with sewer), as well as the new measuring requirements for the 100 ft. of frontage will create many nonconforming lots as well as make waterfront lots less affordable to Wisconsin residents. Lot size and measurement requirements should remain the same as under current law.

NR 115.19 Impervious Surface Standards – Regardless of whether there should be impervious surface caps at all, the 10-20% limit is not practical. Even if a property owner implements mitigation measures, after a driveway is installed, the average lot would only allow 1,800 sq. ft. for the home, garage and patio. (continued)

If impervious surface limits are included it the rule, they must be substantially increased. In addition, if the goal is to protect water quality, homeowners should also be allowed to exceed impervious surface caps if they can present a certified engineering plan that demonstrates the lot has been designed to capture stormwater runoff.

NR 115.19 (4)(f) No Expansion in Primary Buffer – This provision will have little practical effect in improving water quality protection. Many homes within the primary buffer cannot meet the 75ft setback requirement. Therefore, even if their structure is 6 inches within the 35 ft. setback area, they will not be allowed to expand toward the road.

If the true purpose of these rules is to improve water quality protection, lake property owners should be allowed to expand within (new and more reasonable) impervious surface caps as long as the expansion is outside of the 75 ft setback area. This will trigger more mitigation and BMP implementation, which will ultimately create better water quality protection than not allowing such expansions.

NR 115.19(4)(c) Expansion in Secondary Buffer – Structures in the secondary buffer (35-75 ft) should be allowed to expand toward the road regardless of whether they can move their property beyond the 75 ft setback. Most of these properties were in compliance with the law when they were built and should be allowed to expand away from the water.

NR 115.17 (2) (c) Access and Viewing Corridor – The rules as proposed are increasing minimum lot size, presumably to reduce density on public waters. However, larger lots (those with 200 ft of frontage or greater) are allowed a lower percentage of their lot (20%) compared to smaller lots that are allowed 30% under the proposed rules.

All lots should be allowed 30% view corridor with some minimum such as 30 ft for smaller lots.

NR 115.09 Land Division Review – The requirement that counties review all land divisions of one acre or more that are 5 acres in size or smaller will significantly increase regulatory oversight in many counties ultimately creating additional delays and costs for development. This provision should be removed to maintain the current requirement requiring review for all divisions of 3+ parcels of 5 acres or less within a 5 year period.

NR 115.25 County Permit System – Requiring counties to create a zoning permit system on top of their current building permit system and comprehensive planning efforts is an unnecessary duplication of bureaucracy that will only create additional delays and costs.

–END–