[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6290472,"mediaKeyId","2530926-a5489166d6e4c2d40d4416409d2a6a40","parentId",2530926,"title","Contractors urge Polk County to require erosion and landscape plans, site reviews before shoreland permits","audioSeconds",6073,"startMs",1533000,"endMs",7606000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2530926-a5489166d6e4c2d40d4416409d2a6a40&start=1533&end=7606","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2530926-a5489166d6e4c2d40d4416409d2a6a40/thumbnail_1533000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6290472/Polk-County/Wisconsin/Contractors-urge-Polk-County-to-require-erosion-and-landscape-plans-site-reviews-before-shoreland-permits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6290472-f21c8cfb424ba168c8ca8f9aec280e4a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771126485&Signature=NsJGt4ph5eDQ0S~c3aKocUC0S5Twf8KJDbBv3Sn2s-laQQOK3H-4Diorh5-5BUgOL0VjrSzWWC4DNhXtFre7ANmpTqNiNXLCmioAv9mnE-TtOKJqIHlt2qut5H4luia5wGzOb-~13admLVDHb0xUIJvtYG1w-2fixCO8wt2dBbejxhydnwVZzCzfzhcIRxU3bFD2ZuMjmJjK9kwDFDyIxyKS4g7bEswu-QuRADwGP6qx1A0pg5fEk1WWgmF0LDaFUERcDIJ7FXUMvXmJOXKc1r4c5ZcWp7Jkv7j-MBrsEjnvDYbGyogk8RJ1KMeTwxRi3rumgLIP-Se33zQRt--yyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","WI / Polk County ","date","2025-02-19T00:00:00Z","article","Contractors, landscapers and county staff at a Polk County Environmental Services Committee meeting debated how to reduce shoreline erosion and post-construction runoff while keeping permitting feasible for property owners and builders.

John Hall, president and project manager/designer at Folsom Lake Prolon, told the committee his company handled dozens of waterfront projects and that the lack of consistent pre-permit review has contributed to on-site erosion problems. \"Until recently, I felt I had a pretty good grasp of those topics and not anymore,\" Hall said, describing conflicting language and colored edits in the draft packet that left professionals uncertain what will be required.

Why it matters: Contractors said shoreland development is increasingly complex and that late discovery of steep slopes, shared setbacks and drainage features often forces after-the-fact fixes that are costlier and more environmentally damaging than planned mitigation.

Main points from public comment and staff discussion

- Require landscape/erosion plans before land-use permits: Multiple speakers, including Hall and Lakeside Landscaping owner Nick Strelzyk, urged the county to require a landscape plan, erosion-control plan and mitigation plan for projects that involve grading, accessory structures, or building footprints near the ordinary high-water mark. Contractors said the plans would identify needed retaining or wing walls, drainage features and revegetation measures ahead of construction.

- Define thresholds for review: Staff and the committee discussed setting objective triggers for Land & Water review (examples discussed included slope percentage, area disturbed, or impervious-surface thresholds). Eric (Land & Water staff) and others said existing stormwater/erosion-control rules typically apply to commercial projects and that residential thresholds are less consistently enforced.

- Role of retaining walls and \"wing walls\": Landscapers argued a blanket ban on retaining walls would be impractical; several urged a definition that distinguishes engineered retaining walls from small landscape borders and outcropping stones. One commenter suggested a \"wing wall\" option as a technical solution for tight sites where traditional retaining walls are infeasible.

- Coordination, timing and enforcement: Contractors asked that pre-permit reviews be timely; staff noted capacity constraints and that adding Land & Water reviews could extend turnaround times. Committee members and staff discussed permit lengths and mitigation timelines; staff pointed out land-use permits are commonly issued for two years and that mitigation compliance windows and inspection capacity need alignment.

What the committee directed

Committee members asked staff to draft a mitigation checklist and a set of objective thresholds (slope, disturbed area, impervious-surface percentage) that would require Land & Water review or an on-site meeting involving builder, landscaper and county staff. Staff flagged capacity questions but said templates and clearer permit application requirements could reduce repeated site visits and after-the-fact fixes.

Ending

Contractors pressed the committee for a transparent, predictable process and for county staff to work with local landscapers and Land & Water to create usable checklists and educational materials before changes are finalized. The committee asked staff to return with draft guidance and the proposed checklist at the next committee meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Environmental Services Meeting: 2-19-2025","oneSentenceSummary","Contractors and landscapers at a Polk County meeting pushed for mandatory pre-permit erosion/landscape plans and more land-and-water oversight for steep or high-disturbance shoreland projects; staff agreed to develop checklists and thresholds for review but raised capacity concerns.","taxTitle","Polk County, Wisconsin","taxId",72897,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6290477,"Contractors, residents press Polk County committee for clearer shoreland rules on setbacks, decks and boathouses",7817,219000,8036000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2530926-a5489166d6e4c2d40d4416409d2a6a40&start=219&end=8036","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2530926-a5489166d6e4c2d40d4416409d2a6a40/thumbnail_219000.jpg","/articles/6290477/Polk-County/Wisconsin/Contractors-residents-press-Polk-County-committee-for-clearer-shoreland-rules-on-setbacks-decks-and-boathouses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6290477-13f4e42cbaaee31c4cd1888fec5c4255/orig.mp4?Expires=1771126485&Signature=R348I8R5S0QjRgfWnhk3xDjMJVLa~x-09Dka~Y8MGi0DvDx2Xso31VcI-mb2pjnrL-bTHBHq04HCQcECb7LXB-zNwf6ajbQAsELPFO1~ToA2f8uYDZfddF8sv5yCjL2NviseTOAEPFPDvcEfHDvJlgtYT12uSwdsPQkfE7j8YRgd~jgvYggblcIhjTiN4eo1JgPp1R1q4JnLAm708AZLn-aa4PRdf0q-hDJpbKhBf5gnUzZo84bhiRt8j~9qbppSilCqOW4-OrgEwFp~HrqqV0X-TWxi-XwhgOeq7f~j1pk1UtLFAfogoCKD~S6tAY56GzkSA~U2pMK0pljDg71SKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Milltown Township resident and contractor Chris Nelson told Polk County\u0000\u0000\u0000Environmental Services Committee on (date not specified) that recent changes and shifting interpretations of the county's shoreland rules have left builders and property owners confused. \"I cannot follow what really the proposed changes are,\" Nelson said, describing mixed guidance on setbacks, accessory structures and permit practices.

The county is working from a draft shoreland ordinance that staff said reflects state guidance and a 2015 Act 55 update; committee members and multiple contractors asked the committee to clarify how that guidance will be applied to existing, nonconforming cabins, decks and small additions.

Why it matters: Shoreland zoning controls how close buildings and structures can be to lakes and affects everyday waterfront work. Contractors said unclear language has delayed projects and created uneven outcomes for similar properties; staff said the county needs to finalize text so DNR can review and certify it.

Most contested points

- Setback averaging and decks: Logan, a zoning staff member, told the committee the draft follows the model shoreland language and \"the two-sided setback averaging is for new principal structures, not additions.\" Several builders said past practice had allowed setback averaging for modest additions and decks on older family cabins; they warned changing that interpretation could force owners into more costly rebuilds rather than small repairs or expansions.

- One-time 200-square-foot addition: Commenters described confusion over a one-time 200-square-foot exemption that they said is available for structures built before 2015 but can be lost if a property later received a variance. Nelson said the DNR told him the exemption applies to buildings constructed before the 2015 Act 55 definition changes, but that prior variances may prevent later use of the exemption.

- Vertical expansion and nonconforming structures: Builders said previous practice allowed vertical expansion (e.g., adding a basement or raising an existing cabin) in places where the footprint could not be enlarged; earlier this year staff had told builders the county would no longer allow vertical expansion, then reversed that interpretation after consulting the DNR, one commenter said.

- Boathouse design limits: Contractors and realtors pressed the committee over proposed limits on boathouse roofs, deck use and window area. One commenter asked that the draft explicitly permit a flat roof to be used as an occupied deck (with required railings) for existing boathouses and make clear whether new boathouse roofs may be designed for decks. Staff indicated language can be rearranged so rules for existing and new boathouses are clear and consistent with DNR review.

What staff and the committee said

Logan (zoning staff) said the draft includes changes required or recommended by DNR technical guidance and legal updates since 2015 and that the committee will get a revised, consolidated draft before formal submittal to DNR. County attorney input was raised by committee members as necessary when interpretations change.

Ending

Committee members asked staff to bring a revised ordinance back for committee review before formal public hearing or submittal to the DNR. Several contractors asked the committee to preserve practical options for small additions to older cabins, saying wholesale restriction will push routine work into costly variance processes. The committee agreed to continue work on the draft at the next scheduled meeting.","Contractors and lakeshore residents told Polk County\u0000\u0000\u0000Environmental Services Committee draft shoreland rules are confusing and inconsistently enforced, urging clearer language on setback averaging, one-time additions, vertical expansion and boathouse design; staff said technical clarifications and DNR review are pending.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Contractors urge Polk County to require erosion and landscape plans, site reviews before shoreland permits

Contractors, residents press Polk County committee for clearer shoreland rules on setbacks, decks and boathouses