PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
Greetings from the President
This message comes at a time when
all of us our extremely busy and at a time which we may want to reflect on our
mission. On behalf of the Association, I
express our deepest sympathy and offer prayers for the victims and families of
the Katrina hurricane disaster. It is
very unfortunate that enough attention was not paid to allowing so much
development in floodplain areas. All I
can think of is the fact that
On a somewhat lighter side, I
personally have been involved in two musky fishing tournaments over the past
month and have come away empty handed, not even a door prize. However, I must say the experience on the
water, especially at
In closing, I would like to make sure you are all aware of the Fall Conference to be held in Waupaca, at the Best Western at Hwy 49 and US 10. A copy of the agenda, which Phil Gaudet has put together, is on the WCCA Website and hope that we will have a large turnout. I think the program offered is excellent, and has something for every one of our membership, whether it be in waste disposal issues, livestock siting, zoning or whatever. It is a very full schedule and I think it offers something for everyone. I look forward to seeing as many of you there as possible and please register early as I am hopeful that the facility will be over run with WCCA members. Have a good late summer/early fall.
EAST CENTRAL DISTRICT REPORT by Lesley Roll
No Report
NR 115 UPDATE – Phil Gaudet WCCA NR 115 Subcommittee chair
The WCCA Executive Board and the WCCA NR 115 subcommittee
had a joint meeting on August 12th in Waupaca to discuss NR 115. The purpose
was to discuss/clarify WCCA's position on 115 and
determine the next course of action to take in trying to have DNR use WCCA's comments on the latest draft of NR 115. It was
concluded that WCCA must meet face to face with DNR and discuss all the
comments already submitted to DNR by WCCA.
A meeting is scheduled with DNR on September 6th in
AUGUST 2005 WCCA LEGISLATIVE REPORT
Submitted by Duane Greuel,
2005 Introduced Assembly Bills Of Interest to WCCA
|
Proposal |
Description |
Current Status |
Action |
|
Relating to: the protection and
management of the public waters of |
Assembly - Natural Resources |
OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: the placement of riprap, biological shore erosion control structures, seawalls, piers, wharves, boat shelters, boat hoists, boat lifts, and swim rafts in navigable waters and the effective date for the issuance of individual permits for activities in navigable waters. |
Assembly - Natural Resources |
OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: quorum requirements for a zoning board of appeals or adjustment. |
Assembly - Enrolled |
OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: determinations of ordinary high-water marks by counties and by the Department of Natural Resources. |
Assembly - Natural Resources |
OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: a municipality's and county's ability to eliminate certain nonconforming buildings or premises. |
Assembly - Rules |
OPPOSED |
|
|
AB265 |
Relating to: the sale of development
rights separate from the sale of property. |
Assembly - Rules |
|
|
Relating to: the effect of |
Senate - Natural Resources and Transportation |
STRONGLY OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: authorizing towns to withdraw from county zoning and requiring certain towns to become subject to town or county zoning and a comprehensive plan. |
Assembly - Rural Development |
STRONGLY OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: prohibiting the Department
of Natural Resources from promulgating a rule setting forth general policy on
conserving and enhancing navigable waters. |
Assembly - Natural Resources |
OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: the authority of the
Department of Natural Resources to enforce certain violations of the trespass
law; revocation, suspension, and denial of certain approvals and privileges
relating to wild animals and plants for certain violations of the trespass
law; the imposition of a surcharge on a forfeiture for certain violations of
the trespass law; service outside the state of forfeiture citations issued
for violations of certain natural resources laws; title to wild animals;
operation of snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles on land without permission;
and providing a penalty. |
Assembly - Natural Resources |
SUPPORT |
|
|
Relating to: the management and disposal
of septage and municipal sewage sludge, granting
rule-making authority, and making an appropriation. |
Assembly - Natural Resources |
SUPPORT |
|
|
Relating to: activities that are exempt from
water quality standards that are applicable to wetlands. |
Assembly - Natural Resources |
OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: determinations concerning
the navigability of bodies of water; determinations as to whether bodies of
waters are lakes or streams; procedures, requirements, and exemptions that
apply to permits and contracts for activities that affect navigable waters;
maintenance of bridges over navigable streams; liability for changing the
courses of streams; rights of the public and riparian owners in navigable
waters; mediation in making determinations in issuing individual permits and
entering contracts for certain activities that affect navigable waters;
elimination of obsolete provisions of ch. 30; recodification of chapter 30; the duties and powers of
the department of natural resources relating to the regulation of boating;
certificate of number and registration requirements for boats; equipment
requirements for boats; requirements regarding boat operation; regulation of
water skiing and similar activities; marking of water areas; local regulation
of boating and seaplanes; placement and use of moorings; local water safety
patrols; local regulations on icebound waters; boating fees charged by
counties; requiring the exercise of rule-making authority; and providing a
penalty. |
Assembly - Natural Resources |
OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: limiting the reasons for
which a local government may withhold approval of a permit. |
Assembly - Property Rights and Land Management |
|
|
|
Relating to: remedies in certain actions
concerning building code or zoning ordinance violations. |
Assembly - Property Rights and Land Management |
|
Page 2 of 9
2005 Introduced Senate Bills Of Interest to WCCA
|
Proposal |
Description |
Current Status |
Action |
|
Relating to: the protection and
management of the public waters of |
Senate - Natural Resources and Transportation |
OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: the placement of riprap,
biological shore erosion control structures, seawalls, piers, wharves, boat
shelters, boat hoists, boat lifts, and swim rafts in navigable waters and the
effective date for the issuance of individual permits for activities in
navigable waters. |
Senate - Natural Resources and Transportation |
OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: carrying forward a school
district's unused revenue limit authority to the succeeding school year. |
Assembly - Finance |
OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: prohibiting the erection of
certain new off-premises outdoor advertising signs along interstate and
federal-aid primary highways. |
Senate - Natural Resources and Transportation |
OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: a municipality's and
county's ability to eliminate certain nonconforming buildings or premises. |
Senate - Housing and Financial Institutions |
OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: prohibiting the Department
of Natural Resources from promulgating a rule setting forth general policy on
conserving and enhancing navigable waters. |
Senate - Natural Resources and Transportation |
STRONGLY OPPOSED |
|
|
Relating to: authorizing the restoration
of a nonconforming structure that is destroyed by vandalism or certain
natural forces. |
Senate - Housing and Financial Institutions |
|
BUDGET VETOES AFFECTING ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMERCIAL RESOURCES
AGRICULTURE, TRADE AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION
• Fish Hatcheries. The
vetoed sections:
• Create a new annual
appropriation for DATCP to receive funds from the DNR for activities related to
fish hatcheries.
• Repeal the authority to the DNR
to remove fish from a self-contained fish rearing facility that is an
artificial body of water, unless requested by DATCP.
• Require the DNR to obtain a
fish health certificate for its fish hatcheries from DATCP, but exempts the DNR
from the related fees.
COMMERCE
• PECFA Program Changes. Vetoed sections reduce current level of revenue obligation
authority to support the pay of claims under PECFA to $386,924,000 and requires
Dept of Commerce to include in its 2007-09 budget a proposal to phase out the
PECFA program.
• Increase in Enterprise
Development Zones. Provision authorizes Commerce to crease additional
enterprise development zones up to a total of 85 zones. Partial veto gives the
department authority to crease a total of 98 zones.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
• Clean Water Fund Bonding. Veto
deletes section reducing the current level of GO bonding authority for the
Clean Water Fund Program to $622,043,200 from $637,743,200.
• Present Value Subsidy Limit.
Partial veto restores the present value subsidy limit to $12.8 million for
the biennium. Bill reduced the limit to $10 million.
LAND USE
• Comprehensive Planning and
Land Information Aids. Provisions affected would:
• Repeal the current law
comprehensive planning requirements and grant program.
• Require $2 million annually of
fee revenue from the state’s portion of the deed recording fee be deposited in
the general fund, with the balance credited to specific appropriations.
• Require a lapse to the general
fund of $464,100 on
• Doyle vetoed those sections and
partially vetoed another section to restore the program and funding. The vetoes
and partial veto also has the effect of all deed recording fee revenue received
by the state into a continuing appropriation which allows DOA to allot
available revenues to fund grants under the restored program.
• Land Information
Modernization Grants. Affected provision prohibits DOA from providing an
equalization grant to a county that has retained deed recording fee revenue
exceeding $45,000 in any year and limits the amount of equalization grants to
eligible counties to the difference between $45,000 and the amount of revenue
retained by the county. The partial veto removed the limitation.
NATURAL RESOURCES
• Recycling Tipping Fee and
Business Surcharge. The provisions reduce the tipping fee for waste
disposed of in
• Business Waste Reduction and
Recycling Assistance. Provision prohibits DNR from providing more than
$250,000 annually to an individual nonprofit organization under contract to
assist businesses reduce the amount of solid waste generated or to reuse or
recycle solid waste; places limits on amount of funds; and contract provisions.
Partial veto deletes limitations.
• Air Permits. Partial
veto eliminates the requirement for a $300 fee in 2006 for owners or operators
of certain facilities.
• Passive Review of
Obligations Under the Stewardship 2000 Program. Veto
deletes Joint Finance review of land acquisition and property development
activities under the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program.
• Town Board Approval of
Purchases Under the Stewardship 2000 Program. Veto
deletes prohibition on DNR acquisition of land under the program in a township
in which 35% or more of the land is under public ownership unless the town
board approves the acquisition.
• Calculation of Aids-in-Lieu
of Property Taxes. Vetoed sections establish a new formula to calculate the
annual payments of aid-in-lieu of property taxes for properties acquired by the
DNR after the effective date of the bill. Doyle said the formula would “result
in lower payments to local communities in lieu of property taxes.” Current law
is retained.
• Public Access and Managed
• Expenditures from Forestry
Revenues. The affected section establishes a continuing appropriation for
revenues received from the sale of timber harvested from land under management
or control of the NDR and set a priority for distribution. Partial veto was
exercised because Doyle objected “to the limitation on the department’s
flexibility to determine how best to use limited resources. Effect of the veto
is to eliminate the provision’s prioritization and enumerated amounts. Doyle
allowed the initiatives to remain in the bill. He directed the DNR to pursue an
increase in expenditure authority to
fund the programs under S. 13.10 or
as part of the next budget request.
• State Park Admission Fees
for Senior Citizens. Veto eliminates increase in total fee for a resident
senior citizen annual park sticker.
• Ice Shanty Permit for
Nonresidents. Veto eliminates $20, seven-day nonresident and $34 annual
nonresident ice shanty placement permit.
• Chief Warden Authority.
Veto eliminates requirement for appointment of a chief warden and removes
authority to appointment of one or more deputy chief wardens.
• Appropriation for Safety
Education Courses. Partial veto of conversion of appropriation to annual
from continuing and expands purposes of the program. Partial veto retains the
continuing basis.
• Snowmobile Account
Adjustments. Veto deletes lapse of $500,000 from the snowmobile trail aids
appropriation and $300,000 from the supplemental trail aids appropriation.
• Cladaphora
Algae Study. Veto deletes requirement DNR make a $25,000 grant to
• Marsh Restoration. Veto
removes requirement for DNR to identify 10 state-owned wildlife wetland areas
critical to waterfowl breeding production, staging and hunting and prepare
assessments and develop restoration goals.
• Water Resources Account
Lapses. The sections lapse funds from certain appropriations to the
conservation fund for exercise of DNR responsibilities related to water
resources. The appropriations provide funding for lake management and invasive
species control grants, recreational boating aids, boating access, and
• Water Regulation and Zoning
Fees. Veto maintains continuing appropriation of the appropriation.
• Division Administrators.
Vetoed provision reduced number of unclassified division administrators to six
from seven.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC LANDS
•
Information from “THE WHEELER REPORT”-Monday, July 25, 2005
PROPOSED
LEGISLATION INVOLVING BUILDING PERMITS
To: All Legislators
From: Representative Sheryl Albers
Date:
Re: LRB 1301 - Liability and Remedy for Improperly Issued Building Permits
Deadline:
As a result of an unusual occurrence in my district, I am circulating this bill
for co-sponsorship that clarifies who is liable for remedying a situation where
a building permit is issued in conflict with local ordinances. In this
particular instance, the permit was issued based on an accurate application but
in violation of the local government's own zoning ordinances. To the surprise of
the property owner, he learned that he was expected to pay the full cost of
bringing the property into compliance - in essence, to pay the full cost of an
error made by the government.
The bill I am offering for co-sponsorship makes the following changes to
current law:
- Requires that a municipality issuing a building permit be made a party to any
legal action involving an order to raze, move, or modify a structure built as a
result of that permit being issued.
-
If the permit was based on an accurate application, and if the owner of the
property consents, the court may order the municipality to grant a variance for
the structure.
- Generally, if the court orders the structure to be razed, moved, or modified,
the court must also order the municipality to reimburse the person for his
attorney fees and those costs associated with razing, moving, or modifying the
structure. If the order requires the structure to be razed, the municipality
must also reimburse for the cost of labor and materials used in building the
structure.
I believe strongly that the party responsible for the mistake should be
responsible for the costs of bringing the structure into compliance. If an
individual's application is found to be inaccurate, these provisions would not
apply to the municipality. This bill only affects those instances in which the
application for a building permit is found to be accurate.
If you wish to co-sponsor this legislation, please contact Joyce Waldrop
(6-8531) in my office. The deadline for co-sponsorship is
Analysis by the Legislative
Reference Bureau
This bill specifies that, in any action
in which a party seeks an order directing a person to raze, move, or modify a
structure located on real property owned by the person on the basis that the
structure violates a building code or zoning ordinance of a county, city,
village, or town (political subdivision), any political subdivision that issued
a permit for the construction of the structure must be made a party to the
action. If the permit was issued based upon an accurate application, if the
structure was constructed in accordance with the permit, if the violation is
not due to damage to or other change in the structure arising after the
construction of the structure, and if the person who owns the property
consents, the court may order the political subdivision to grant a variance for
the structure. If the court orders the person to raze the structure, the court
must order the political subdivision to pay to the person an amount equal to
the sum of all of the following: a) the reasonable attorney fees incurred by
the person in defending the action; b) any fees paid by the person to the
political subdivision with regard to the construction of the structure; c) the
total cost of labor and materials for construction of the structure; and d) the
total cost of razing the structure. If the court orders the person to move or
modify the structure, the court must order the political subdivision to pay to
the person an amount equal to the sum of all of the following: a) the
reasonable attorney fees incurred by the person in defending the action; b) any
fees paid by the person to the political subdivision with regard to the
construction of the structure; and c) the total cost of moving or modifying the
structure. The remedies provided under this bill may be ordered in addition to
or in lieu of any other remedy provided by law.
DISTRICT II
COURT OF APPEALS OPINION
2004AP002080. Marvin Herman v.
This is a
town-county zoning and conditional use permit case. The Town of
judgment
upholding the Walworth County Land Management Committee's (now Walworth County
Zoning
Authority)
approval of two conditional use permits for construction of a single, two-unit
condominium on each of
two
adjacent parcels of lakefront property in the Town.
The disputed
permits satisfy the
and
master plan. The Town contends the County Zoning Authority violated Wis. Stat. ch. 236, improperly favored
the
County's ordinance over the Town's, and failed to accord the Town's master plan
sufficient deference.
The
requires
a division of land and the only question before the County Zoning Authority was
whether the proposed
development
was an appropriate use of the two existing lots.
The
mandatory
but merely advisory," applies in this case and the County Zoning Authority
properly acknowledge that
the
Town's master plan was not mandatory.
The
mandatory
and because the Town's land division ordinance was never adopted by the
shoreland zoning ordinance controls.
Information
obtained from “THE WHEELER REPORT”-
SUPREME COURT
RULES IN BOARD OF APPEALS RECORDS
The State
Supreme Court ruled today Boards of Zoning Appeals must explain their reasons
for granting or denying zoning variances.
"The Board may not rest on a declaration that an application does
not meet certain ordinance criteria; the Board must explain why the application
does not meet the criteria," the Supreme Court ruled today. “We do not
expect board of zoning appeal to produce judicial opinions," Justice
Prosser wrote. "We agree, in fact, that a written decision is not required
as long as a board's reasoning is clear from the transcript of its
proceedings."
Further,
Prosser wrote, "A board may not simply grant or deny an application with conclusory statements that the
application
does or does not satisfy the statutory requirements. Rather, we expect a board
to express, on the record, its reasoning why an application does or does not
meet the statutory criteria. Without such statement of reasoning, it is
impossible for the circuit court to meaningfully review a board's decision, and
the value of certiorari review becomes worthless."
The Supreme
Court decision affirmed a District I Court of Appeals decision, which held the
Board of Zoning
Appeals of the
City of
Outdoor, Inc.'s application for a dimensional area variance to
raise the height of a billboard. The Supreme Court
sent the
case back to circuit court with instructions to remand it to the board. On
remand, the Supreme Court said
the board
should reconsider and, if necessary, rehear and decide this matter in
conformance with the new legal
standards
governing area variances. The Supreme Court expressed no opinion on whether
Lamar's application
should be
granted under Ziervogel and
In a concurring
opinion, Chief Justice Abrahamson concurred with the rule advanced by the
majority, but said the
majority
opinion left "uncertain the procedure each member of the board must follow
to ensure that the Board as a
whole has
provided adequate reasoning for granting or denying an application when the
Board does not offer a
written
opinion."
Information
obtained from “THE WHEELER REPORT”-
SUPREME COURT OF
Opinion Filed
"When reviewing the
decision to grant or deny a conditional use permit,
a county board of adjustment has
the authority to conduct a de novo
review of the record and
substitute its judgment for the County zoning
committee's judgment. Moreover, under
the applicable state statue, a
board has authority to take new
evidence."
Information obtained from:
Zoning/On Site Waste Systems
Technician
Jefferson County Zoning
Department
(920) 674-7130
NEWS
FROM THE NORTH EAST DISTRICT (NEWCCA) by Duane Haakenson
No Report
Southern
District Report by Scott
Godfrey
No Report
South East District Report by
On
- Section 10. 94.73(2)(bg) page 9, we were concerned this may apply to a POWTS system.
- Section 24 page 24, the definition of “soil absorption field means an area or cavity in the ground which receives the liquid discharge of a septic tank or similar component of a private sewage system.” Does this apply to systems which are above-ground such as mound systems and at-grades? We would suggest the definition be changed to include these types of soil absorption fields.
- Section 14. 145.245(3), Maintenance Program. The bill states it would allow the Department of Commerce to “determine the private sewage system to which the maintenance program applies.” Our district felts that maintenance should only be mandatory for a county since the time they have entered the Wisconsin Fund Program. For counties which have not adopted the Wisconsin Fund Program, we believe they should be required to start keeping records of maintenance of systems at the time of the adoption of this bill. We do not support any retroactive maintenance requirements of older systems. This would require additional staff time, new computer programs and additional staff to maintain these records on this type of scale. As more and more counties’ budgets and personnel are cut, this type of mandate would be unreasonable.
- Section 13. 145.20(6), Local Assistance Programs. This bill does not mention any funding source for either the state or counties for another mandated program. At the county level, this type of program would require additional staff and computer programs. Again, with many counties reducing budgets and staff, this type of program would not be feasible. At the state level, the Department of Commence has already stated that when staff retires, they will not be replaced. How is the state going to be able to hire an additional staff person plus give cost sharing grants to the counties?
- Section 51. 283.82, Land application of sewage sludge. It appears that the Department of Commerce will “oversee, set technical standards for and regulate the application of sewage sludge to land.” In section 3, it states that Counties MAY enact a model ordinance for sewage land application. Our district did not object to this as long as it remained “may” and not “shall”. Again, the counties are worried that this may become another mandated rule that they would be required to administrate.
We beliefly
discussed NR115 and suggested to Counties in our district to pass resolutions
to oppose the new rule. I attended the Aug 2 (Delavan) and the Aug 4 (
Hope to see you all at the
Fall Conference October 19-21. As always, if you have any questions or
concerns, please contact me at michelles@co.jefferson.wi.us.
Water Access as a
Community Resource
Bruce Neeb DNR-- Government Outreach Team Leader, West Central Region
This article appears
in the July 2005 issue of Wisconsin Counties, the news magazine of the
WI Counties Association. Reprinted from Wisconsin Counties, July
2005
Take a break. Close your eyes for a minute and think of some time you’ve spent with family or friends on a lake shore or along the banks of a river. Picture the sunset. Recall the sound of the breeze through the trees – of kids skipping stones. Maybe you have memories of paddling a canoe with a loved-one, or the smile of a fishing partner as you landed a fish in a boat together.
If you left, right now, how long would it take you to get the nearest public access to a lake or stream? Is it close enough that you might be able to take your lunch there on a pleasant day and have a little picnic? Is it close enough that you might take a son, daughter, nephew, niece or grandchild there for an hour or so this weekend with a fishing pole, a bobber, and a can of worms?
The truth is, public access to
water in
Property owners often dismiss the value of a public access corridor by suggesting “nobody uses it anyway,” or that it’s too steep for anyone to put a boat in the water. Platted access sites are often disguised, or even encroached upon by the placement of yard barns, wood piles or landscaping. People don’t know they can use the site to simply get their feet wet, enjoy the quiet and listen to the lapping of the waves.
Local officials asked to abandon roadways that go to water forget the fact that as homes pop up in the country, fire tankers may need a public access to water. When summer vacation arrives in these new communities, what destination will there be for that group of kids in swimsuits riding their bikes – or for the 12-year-old carrying his fishing pole? Too often, in the interest of helping a neighbor, local elected officials fail to consider the fact that once public access is gone, it’s gone forever.
Ironically, public access to water is disappearing at a time when community planners are looking for ways to provide inexpensive, family recreation opportunities close to home. Improvements in water quality and fisheries are turning lakes and rivers into wonderful assets for the communities that border them. The most attractive communities will be those that recognize this and make these assets available to the public.
There are other reasons to think twice before agreeing to abandon access to water. Just as the Public Trust Doctrine assures that navigable waters are public property and thus for public use, the public’s access to lakes and streams is protected by state law. Towns and counties have a legal responsibility under s. 80.41, Wis. Stats., to provide for public access and to replace any public access to water that is necessarily abandoned.
Town and county supervisors are advised to talk with
Regional Waterway Access Coordinators at the Department of Natural Resources
before considering abandonment proposals.
While it might seem easy, passing a waterway access abandonment
resolution is a time-consuming process that can involve great expense for the
community. Section NR 1.92(2),
Increasingly, communities are considering enhancement of the
public access they provide to their waterways. The DNR also has information on
grant programs to help fund river walks, water-front parks, boat landings,
canoe ramps, fishing piers and shore fishing stations for people with
disabilities. Section NR 1.91,
For further information about DNR grant programs, please visit our web site at:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/cfa/Grants/index.html
North West District Kevin
Krause
No report
Centr