Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreland Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan Commission reopens hearing then holds shoreland‑wetland zoning amendment for language cleanup
Summary
The commission reopened the public hearing on shoreland‑wetland zoning amendments after staff reported DNR concurrence on model language but commissioners sought clarification about navigability language; the item was held to the next meeting with the public hearing left open.
The Appleton City Plan Commission on Sept. 24 reopened the public hearing on proposed shoreland and wetland zoning amendments and then voted to hold the item to its next meeting to allow staff to clarify language.
Don (staff member) summarized the draft: staff presented the same language at an Aug. 27 informational meeting and had solicited review from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, which gave concurrence that the model code language satisfied DNR expectations. Don said the proposed change would create an Article 11 Shoreland Wetland Zoning District, amend the city’s shoreland zoning language and update the official shoreland district map.
Don told the commission the ordinance would regulate wetlands of 5 acres or greater located within the shoreland area; staff also revised the map to reflect shoreland areas within 300 feet of streams and rivers and 1,000 feet of other bodies of water and to show which wetlands of five acres or more would be affected.
At least one commissioner asked staff to clarify Section 23-7-52(b), which the commissioner read as presuming both “navigable” and “non‑navigable” streams to be navigable in some circumstances. The commission asked staff to consult the city engineer about the intended administration of that language. Director Homan and other staff noted the administration for this section falls under public works.
Because the wording appeared unclear, the commission first moved and voted to reopen the public hearing on agenda item 25-10-95. After reopening, the commission moved and seconded to hold the action item (25-10-96) until its next meeting so staff could work through language cleanup and, if necessary, reopen the hearing again if substantive amendments are made. The chair recorded no opposition to holding the item; the public hearing remains open.
Staff recommended approval of the draft language in the packet but acknowledged the specific phrasing at Section 23-7-52(b) needed further review. The commission did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting and took no final action on the shoreland map.
