Winnebago County debates replacing shoreland code with DNR template amid town readiness concerns
Loading...
Summary
The Winnebago County Board of Supervisors considered an ordinance to revise Chapter 27 to mirror the DNR model shoreland ordinance. Town officials and residents urged local control; county leaders raised legal and timing concerns and sought more time for towns to prepare maps and receive an attorney general opinion.
Winnebago County Board of Supervisors members spent more than an hour debating a proposed revision to Chapter 27 of the county code that would adopt a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) model shoreland ordinance and remove references to county general zoning within shoreland areas.
The proposal would limit the county's shoreland regulations to measures expressly aimed at protecting water quality and aquatic habitat and would leave general zoning (rules about uses, lot coverage, building form) to the towns that choose to exercise that authority.
Why it matters: Supporters said the change implements state law and the DNR template and restores local control to towns that have already adopted general zoning. Opponents and some county officials warned the change could create gaps in local regulation if towns lack shoreland zoning maps or if legal questions about overlapping authority remain unresolved.
Public comment included multiple elected town officials and residents who urged the county to approve the ordinance. Holly Stevens, clerk and zoning administrator for the town of Winchester, told the board that 11 of 15 towns in Winnebago County have followed the statutory process to adopt general zoning and that the draft ordinance follows the DNR template and state statute. “Approve the shorelands zoning ordinance as presented,” Stevens said.
Matt Olsen, chairman for the town of Winchester, said towns have already had their general zoning ordinances certified by the state and described county enforcement of county general zoning in shoreland areas as “overreach” that has caused confusion for property owners. Several residents who spoke during public comment raised enforcement and staffing concerns, saying villages such as Fox Crossing already struggle to enforce shoreline rules.
County Executive Hintz and other county officials urged caution. Hintz told the board that county records show no towns currently have general zoning maps adopted for shoreland areas and that, under Wisconsin Statute 60.62, the county board must approve any zoning map changes. He requested pushing the ordinance’s effective date to April 1, 2026, to give towns time to adopt maps and permit the county to seek an attorney general opinion about legal obligations and potential liability.
Multiple supervisors pressed for clarity about timing, maps, and the interplay between state law, DNR guidance, and county obligations. Supporters, including Supervisor Howard Miller, chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee, said the ordinance matches the DNR model and that the DNR reviewed the draft with only minor edits; Miller argued that the DNR model purposely excludes general zoning and focuses shoreland code on water protection.
What was decided: The county board debated and took up a motion to approve the revised Chapter 27. The provided transcript shows the motion was moved and seconded and that a roll-call machine vote was started; the transcript does not include a definitive recorded final vote result for the ordinance in the provided excerpt. Several supervisors called for a delayed implementation date so towns could adopt or confirm mapping and to allow time for an attorney general opinion to reduce potential legal risk.
Context and next steps: Board members asked planning staff to continue outreach to towns and recommended clarifying how town zoning maps would be handled and whether temporary arrangements could allow towns to use current county maps while they adopt formal mappings. County staff and committee members noted the DNR model was released following state statutory changes (Act 41 and Act 145 were cited during public comment) and that the model is intended to align shoreland rules with state water-protection objectives.
The board’s debate made clear the policy tradeoffs: supporters emphasized local control and adherence to the DNR template; critics emphasized potential legal exposure and uneven town readiness. The transcript ends with the motion on the floor and continued discussion; the ordinance’s implementation date and any required follow-up (including an attorney general opinion) remained key unresolved items at the close of this excerpt.
