Presentation on theme: "Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board Forum April 4, 2011 Lynn Markham Center for Land Use Education, UW-Stevens Point."— Presentation transcript:
Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board Forum April 4, 2011 Lynn Markham Center for Land Use Education, UW-Stevens Point
Outline for this session 1) Why care about shoreland zoning? Economics of water lake and river protection Fishing, swimming, etc. 2) What standards have changed and when do counties need to implement them
Lake quality & economics: Is there a connection? “More polluted lakes have less valuable property than do cleaner lakes.” E.L. David, Water Resources Research, 1968
Water quality & economics A study of over 1200 waterfront properties in Minnesota found when water clarity changed by 3 feet changes in property prices for these lakes are in the magnitude of tens of thousands to millions of dollars. Krysel et al, 2003.
Enjoying healthy lakes & rivers: Part of who we are in WI
Healthy shorelands make healthy lakes and higher property values
Shoreland zoning history June 1966, Water Resources Act passed Legislature gave DNR general supervision over WI waters including a statewide shoreland zoning program for all unincorporated areas. Deadline for county adoption of an ordinance was January 1, 1968. By 1971, all counties had adopted and were administering a shoreland ordinance. 1980: NR115 amended to create minimum shoreland-wetland standards Applied to cities and villages in 1981 through legislative directive (NR117).
NR 115 Revision Efforts 2002: 28-member Advisory Committee formed to identify and discuss resource specific issues. Included county reps and reps from public and private sector. 2003: 8 Public listening sessions on initial concepts 2005: First proposal taken to 11 public hearings and public comment period 1,200 comments during the public hearings & over 11,000 comments during the public comment period. 2007: 8 public hearings and public comment period 727 comments during public hearings & 1,654 additional comments during the public comment period. Over 14,000 comments!
NR 115 Revision Efforts Fall 2009 – Consensus on proposed rule by Realtors Assn, Builders Assn, WI Lakes and River Alliance. Legislative hearings. Approved by the WI Natural Resources Board. Feb. 1, 2010- Final rule went into effect setting minimum standards. Counties may adopt more protective standards. Feb. 1, 2012 – Counties need revised shoreland ordinances to meet new rule. 40counties have started revising their shoreland ordinances: zoning committee discussions to revise ordinances, open houses & public presentations Buffalo County Board passed their revised shoreland ordinance on March 1, 2011 Other counties have submitted their draft ordinances to the DNR for review
Counties going beyond 1968 law Counties recognized inadequacies Adopted higher standards “New” ideas 16 counties have impervious surface stds 27 counties have shoreland mitigation Map by Wisconsin Lakes
What standards have stayed the same? Lot sizes Shoreland setbacks Shoreland buffer sizes
What standards have changed & why? Shoreline buffers Impervious surface limits More flexibility for nonconforming principal structures Mitigation requirements
Shoreline buffers 1968 law First 35 foot no clear-cut zone No definition for clear-cut New NR 115 First 35 feet, no vegetation removal except Access and viewing corridors Shoreline restoration activities & invasive species control Dead, dying or diseased when replaced with native vegetation Sound forestry practices on larger tracts of land Where mowing currently occurs counties may allow “keep what you have”
Stronger buffer language because Greater understanding of buffers/native plants and what they do…compared to lawns. Bluegrass circled.
Effects of impervious surfaces Erosion More pollutants entering water Increased algae growth Fewer fish & insect species
Less than 8% 8-12% Greater than 12% Increasing impervious surface in the watershed Decreasing number of fish & fish species Less than 8%8 - 12%Greater than 12% Iowa darter Black crappie Channel catfish Yellow perch Rock bass Hornyhead chub Sand shiner Southern redbelly dace Golden shiner Northern pike Largemouth bass Bluntnose minnow Johnny darter Common shiner Creek chub Fathead minnow Green sunfish White sucker Brook stickleback Creek chub Fathead minnow Green sunfish White sucker Brook stickleback Golden shiner Northern pike Largemouth bass Bluntnose minnow Johnny darter Common shiner Creek chub Fathead minnow Green sunfish White sucker Brook stickleback Fish found in streams when impervious surface in the watershed was: Wang et al. 2000 2008 study of 164 WI lakes found the same trend
Impervious surface standards What is an impervious surface? An area that releases all or a majority of the precipitation that falls on it. Includes rooftops, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, etc. What are the geographical boundaries of this standard? Applies to property within 300-feet of any waterway What is the standard? Keep what you have Up to 15% impervious no permit is needed Between 15% - 30% ok with a permit and mitigation
Impervious Surface Example 15% of 20,000 sq. ft. lot 1500 sq. ft. house footprint 740 sq. ft. garage 660 sq. ft. driveway 100 sq. ft. sidewalk 3000 sq. ft. total
Nonconforming Principal Structures Nonconforming structure is An existing structure that was lawfully placed when constructed but that does not comply with the required water setback Known in some counties as “legal, pre-existing structures” NR 115 provides increased flexibility for nonconforming structures in exchange for mitigation: Vertical expansion Horizontal and/or vertical expansion beyond the shoreline setback Replacement or relocation
Shoreland mitigation Definition “balancing measures that are designed, implemented and function to restore natural functions and values that are otherwise lost through development and human activities What natural functions? Water quality, near-shore aquatic habitat, upland wildlife habitat and natural scenic beauty Mitigation is triggered by Increasing impervious surfaces over 15% Expanding nonconforming structures
Shoreland mitigation A menu approach is common in 21 counties with mitigation Example Mitigation practicePoints Buffer restoration 35 feet from OHWM3 points Buffer restoration 10 feet from OHWM1 point Rain garden to capture runoff1 point Removing accessory structures less than 75’ from OHWM1-3 points Narrowing viewing corridor1 point Reducing shoreland lighting1 point Removing shoreline structures such as firepits, beaches1 point Other practices agreed to by zoning administratorUp to 2 points
Resources to help with shoreland ordinance revisions County zoning staff with 5-15 years of experience with impervious surface standards & mitigation WI County Code Administrators NR 115 revisions guidebook Draft on-line & presented at WCCA conference last week Final version within 2 weeks
Resources to help with shoreland ordinance revisions Compilation of counties’ ordinance language for mitigation and impervious surface www.wisconsinlakes.org/policy/pdf/CountyImpvSurfa ceMitigationOrdinanceExamples.pdf UW-Extension educational assistance: written materials, posters, presentations $5K grants from DNR for ordinance revisions
Summary Healthy, natural shorelands provide healthy lakes with good fishing and higher property values 30 counties revised their shoreland ordinances to more effectively protect lakes and rivers from 1995-2005 Counties need to revise their shoreland ordinances to comply with NR 115 by February 1, 2012 40 counties have started revising their shoreland ordinances to comply with NR 115 Assistance is available through experienced zoning staff, WI County Code Administrators, UW-Extension and DNR grants
Comments, questions?? Lynn Markham Land Use Specialist email@example.com 715.346.3879 NR 115 administrative rule http://legis.wisconsin.gov /rsb/code/nr/nr115.pdf