Polk County committee begins review of shoreland/zoning rewrite; DNR input and public process flagged

Polk County’s Environmental Services Committee spent substantial time reviewing a proposed reorganization and revision of the county shoreland zoning ordinance, with staff and legal counsel stressing the need to align county language with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requirements and committee members and public commenters urging more public input.

Zoning Administrator Logan (name in packet) explained that the packet includes a redlined draft that reorganizes shoreland provisions, incorporates DNR model-language for wetland and shoreland districts and removes multiple references that previously exempted towns that adopt their own zoning. “The shoreland ordinance is supposed to be enforced in all unincorporated shoreland areas,” Logan said, and staff proposed striking language that exempted individual towns from county shoreland rules.

Several items drew extended discussion. City and lake-group concerns about large “bunkhouses” and boathouses were prominent: - Bunkhouses: Staff proposed shrinking the allowed maximum bunkhouse size from the county’s previous 1,000 square feet toward 500 square feet (and stricter relative-floor-area limits) because larger accessory buildings can operate as second dwellings or tourist rentals. Several supervisors said the committee should keep current language for now; a majority favored retaining the existing 1,000-square-foot allowance as a starting point for further discussion. - Boathouses: Staff flagged a trend toward boathouses being used as deck/gathering spaces with patio doors, glass walls and stairways, rather than solely for marine equipment storage. The DNR model ordinance requires that existing flat-roof boathouses be allowed to have a roof deck; staff and counsel noted options: (a) allow flat roofs and therefore allow roof decks consistent with DNR guidance, (b) require pitched/gable roofs and therefore prohibit flat-roof decks, or (c) adopt mixed rules and specify technical limits (maximum sidewall height, fenestration limits, engineered slope/erosion controls). Committee members asked staff to bring clearer options and diagrams back for review.

Other major drafting issues discussed included setback averaging rules (two-sided and one-sided averaging), whether lake-class-based higher setbacks should remain, impervious-surface limits and mitigation pathways, and requirements for engineered erosion-control plans for steep boathouse sites. Corporation Counsel Joe told the committee that the DNR can require county shoreland ordinance changes and that staff and the committee should work with DNR to avoid the state unilaterally prescribing county language: “DNR has the absolute authority to come into the county and tell you what your ordinance is,” he said; committee members interpreted that as encouragement to produce a draft consistent with DNR expectations while keeping public input.

Public commenter (and long-time resident) Mr. Olson urged the committee to slow the rewrite and involve lake associations and other stakeholders. Committee members proposed scheduling a second, informal committee meeting to collect broader public feedback (suggested Feb. 19) and agreed that draft language should be circulated in cleaner, non-redlined form for public review before any formal hearing. Staff said they will return with reorganized draft text (clean copy), diagrams (setback averaging and height examples), and a mitigation handbook that outlines impervious-surface treatment options used in other counties. The committee did not adopt ordinance language at the meeting; it directed staff to return with revised draft language and to publicize an informational session.