Improving Oneida Countys Shoreland Protection Ordinance:

To protect, preserve, and improve the quality of lakes and river, Oneida Countys
most valuable, natural economic resource.
Oneida County is blessed with 1,1001 lakes covering 68,447 acres, and over 830 miles of streams.
Shoreland property owners have the privilege and responsibility to develop, restore and manage their
property in a way that will protect, preserve and improve the quality of lakes and rivers, Oneida Countys
most valuable, natural economic resource. Oneida County has the responsibility and power granted by the
Wisconsin DNR to ensure that property owners do so, for the sake of all citizens and visitors to Oneidas
waters.
In 2015 - 2016 the Oneida County Board of Supervisors with the support of the Planning and Zoning
Department staff will update Oneida Countys Shoreland Protection Ordinance to be in compliance with
the statewide minimum standards as outlined in NR115. The purpose of NR115 is to further the
maintenance of safe and healthful conditions; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning
grounds, fish and aquatic life; control building sites, placement of structures and land uses and to reserve
shore cover and natural beauty.
This revision is a great opportunity for the citizens of the county to advocate for specific changes to this
ordinance that reflect the specific needs of our residents, our tourism based economy, and our lakes and
rivers.

Problem
Oneida Countys current ordinance to protect the quality of our water, our most valuable economic
resource, is not as protective as other ordinances in the northwoods. The majority of the laws are the
same as the statewide minimums which are written to be a one size fits all rule for the whole state of
Wisconsin and if implemented will not adequately protect our waters.
We are not like the rest of Wisconsin. We deserve better than a statewide minimum given Oneida
Countys lakes and rivers have a significant influence upon our economy. $186 million2 are spent in our
county each year by tourist who visit largely to fish, swim and boat. In addition, our healthy lakes appeal
to second home owners. Tax revenue from lake properties that are second homes, annually contributes
32% of total collections.3 Recent studies have shown that sound shoreland zoning can have a positive
influence on lake health influencing property values and, ultimately, our tax revenues.4
Therefore, it is up to us to find a delicate balance between lake quality and lakeshore development to
protect our lakeshore property values. Carefully crafted and consistently enforced shoreland ordinances
can help to protect and sustain the economic base of Oneida County. Without stronger protections and
more resources allocated to implementing these protections, we can expect lower quality water, more
algae blooms threatening human health, less sport fish and less tourism.

Solution
The Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association is recommending specific changes be made to the
shoreland protection ordinance. If all adopted, these changes will work in concert to protect the beauty
1

Oneida County, Wisconsin. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2015, from http://www.oneida.wi.gov/index.asp?locid=135

Wisconsin Department of Tourism
3
Brown, T. 2014. UWEX Oneida County. Protecting Our Lakes to Protect Our Economy, Six County Economic
Conference
4
Krysel et al. 2003. Lakeshore property values and water quality: Evidence from property sales in the Mississippi
Headwaters region.
2

1
Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association | March 12, 2015

and character of our shorelines, improve the clarity of our waters, protect property values on our shores,
and improve the fishing. The following recommendations fall within seven areas and are based upon
successful practices being implemented in other counties in the north.

Ordinance Purpose Statements

Landowner Consultation and Site Inspections
Staff and Resource Needs
Mitigation
Building Setbacks
Shoreland Vegetative Buffer Zone
Replacement or Relocation of Pre-existing Structures

Ordinance Purpose Statements

Purpose statements within an ordinance serve to inform the public of the reason for the regulation and to
guide zoning staff and committees decisions regarding variances, enforcement, and amendments. The
Shoreland Protection Ordinance itself and each subheading (ex. OHWM Setbacks) should begin with a
strong, clear purpose statement. There are strong purpose statements in other areas of the proposed
ordinance, regarding Impervious Surface Standards and Shoreland Vegetative Buffer Zones.
Recommendations:
1. Add a purpose statement at the beginning of Chapter 9 Article 9 (Ex. Sawyer County)
2. Add a purpose statement for OWHM Setbacks (9.94A)
3. Add a purpose statement for Shoreland Mitigation Plan (9.96)
Other Supporting Arguments:
Without a purpose statement the desired effect of the regulation may not be clear to landowners
and permit applicants. A strong understanding of the desired effect may lead to higher
compliance, less enforcement action needed.
One purpose of the ordinance should be to protect the landowners investment. A study found that
good water quality, which natural shorelands help to protect, added as much as $200 per frontage
foot to the value of shoreland properties. What landowners do to sustain or improve water quality
will improve resale potential. On the other hand, if water quality is degraded, lower property
values would result. Waterfront property values decrease when water is cloudy.5
Within the first purpose statement, it should also be stated that shoreland property owners have
the privilege and responsibility to develop, restore and manage their property in a way that will
protect, preserve and improve the quality of lakes and rivers. Poor management of their shoreline
impacts all of us.

Landowner Consultation and Site Inspections

While site inspections can be costly and consume a lot of staffs time, they have proven to be of utmost
importance in ensuring laws are understood and followed before the damage is done to our shorelines.
Most landowners want to do the right thing; they just need to know how. A pre-planning or staking
consultation may prevent new owners or builders from disturbing the existing shoreline vegetation
preventing the need for costly restoration or mitigation that is often not as effective at retaining runoff and
providing habitat as the original, native plants. Design consultations, by staff will enable them to
prescribe effective and reasonable site-specific mitigation measures possibly saving the landowner time
and money. Finally, monitoring or follow-up consultations ensure that mitigation or restoration efforts
were effective. This will prevent unsightly scars on our lakeshores that result in more erosion, decreased
habitat and murkier waters.
5

Krysel et al. 2003. Lakeshore property values and water quality: Evidence from property sales in the Mississippi
Headwaters region.

2
Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association | March 12, 2015

OCLRA Recommendation:
4. A minimum of three site visits should be conducted when a shoreland modification permit is
granted
a. Preplanning or staking consultation
b. Design consultation
c. Monitoring or follow-up consultation
5. Establish mitigation monitoring goals (ex. Land and Water or Planning and Zoning staff will
monitor 10% of sites with a mitigation plan per year)
Other Supporting Arguments:
Langlade County staff conducts a total of six site visits per permit to ensure that the landowner
and contractors are familiar with the shoreland zoning requirements and properly implement all
mitigation measures.
During site consultations staff are providing service in assisting and educating landowners
resulting a sustainable shoreline plan.

Staff and Resource Needs

A strong ordinance is only as good as the staff and resources available to educate the public and
implement the ordinance. Today in Oneida County, people simply do not know the rules. We have all
heard stories of a new homeowner clearing the vegetative buffer to improve their view of the lake. Often
they do so not knowing that they have risked harming the quality of their lake, compromising their
property values, and degrading their fishery. Not to mention, their actions were illegal. We recognize
that here in Oneida County limited resources are available. For that reason there is great need for the
Planning and Zoning Department and the Land and Water Department to partner closely to ensure that the
shoreland protection ordinance is proactively implemented to avoid the need for costly enforcement and
degraded waters. Funding is available through the Wisconsin DNR and the current permit fee structure
can be adapted if necessary.
OCLRA Recommendations:
6. Seek a Lake Planning Grant from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to help fund a
lake and shoreline specialist to serve both the Planning and Zoning Department and the Land and
Water Department in conducting on site consultations, mitigation monitoring and public outreach
(ex. Langlade/Lincoln, Douglas, Sawyer)
Other Supporting Arguments:
The Oneida County Land and Water Resource Management Plan (2012 2016) states that the
Land and Water Department will work with the Planning and Zoning Department to assist
landowners with mitigation requirements (Goal 2).
The Oneida County Land and Water Resource Management Plan (2012 2016) states that the
department will seek state funds to provide cost sharing to assist riparian landowners (Goal 3).
The county has already received a lake planning grant in 2010.
Langlade County charges $200 for required on-site consultations
Grants made available by the WDNR are funded with our tax dollars. We should get a piece of
the pie like the 42 other counties who received grants in 2014. Why should we let all of this tax
money go elsewhere?

Mitigation
Mitigation has become an important concept as it provides reasonable choices for property owners to
improve infiltration of runoff, restore shoreline buffer functions, or other measures to offset the
development impacts. It allows the landowner more flexibility in the end, specifically when they have
pre-existing structures. Oneida Countys proposed language requires a mitigation plan when a boathouse
3
Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association | March 12, 2015

is constructed, special zoning permission for structures in shoreland setback area is granted, lot exceeds
maximum impervious surface standards, or owner is expanding/replacing pre-existing principal
structures.
OCLRA Recommendations:
7. Mitigation plans be required for all permits and include shoreland restoration plans (ex.
Langlade County), and
8. Eliminate specific tree diameter requirements from the ordinance language (ex. Langlade
County; they have shoreland vegetation guidelines and density requirements separate from the
ordinance.)
Other Supporting Arguments:
Shoreline restoration plans can be done by private contractors which will support local
landscaping businesses
Choice of site-specific mitigation plans developed by staff allows landowners flexibility and
ownership with sound management practices.

Building Setbacks
Building setbacks protect human health and welfare, preserve natural beauty, reduce flood hazards and
avoid water pollution. Runoff from structures located too close to the shore quickly carries nutrients,
sediment, and other pollutants to a lake or stream with very little opportunity for a shoreland buffer to
filter contaminants or infiltrate runoff. Oneida County currently is proposing to adopt the statewide
minimum setback of 75 feet from any navigable waters. Where an existing development pattern exists,
the shoreland setback for a proposed principal structure may be reduced to the average shoreland setback
of the principal structure on each adjacent lot, but the shoreland setback may not be reduced to less than
40 feet from the OHWM. Many counties in the north have chosen to exceed the statewide minimum,
requiring that homes be built 100 or 125 feet from the shore. Many counties including Vilas and
Langlade County have chosen not to allow setback averaging.
OCLRA Recommendation:
9. Do not allow setback averaging (ex. Vilas County)
Other Supporting Arguments:
For the sake of fairness, every property should be brought into compliance with the shoreline
zoning ordinance, if possible.
In the rare situations where eliminating setback averaging is woefully unfair to the landowner,
they may seek a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Variances in shoreland areas
compromise water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and natural scenic beauty. The effects of
variances, though they may be imperceptible on an individual site, accumulate lot by lot
throughout the shoreland. Therefore, allowing builders to build within the 75 foot setback should
be a rare exception to the rule

Shoreland Vegetative Buffer Zone

Natural vegetation on land abutting lakes and streams protects scenic beauty, controls erosion, provides
wildlife habitat, and reduces the flow of effluents and nutrients from the shoreland into the water.
Removing natural vegetation from the lakeshore reduces desirable game fish, such as yellow perch6.
According to state law, the county must designate buffer zones, land that extends from the OHWM to a
minimum of 35 feet inland where the removal of vegetation is prohibited with a few exceptions. One of
the exceptions is for the removal of trees to create viewing access corridors (VAC). The combined width
6

Helmus, M., & Sass, G. 2008. The rapid effects of a whole-lake reduction of coarse woody debris on fish and
benthic macro invertebrates. Freshwater Biology , 53, 14231433.

4
Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association | March 12, 2015

of all VACs on a riparian lot or parcel may not exceed the lesser of 30 percent of the shoreline frontage or
200 feet.
In 2001 Oneida County allowed one 30 wide VAC per 100 frontage or if <100 frontage, 30% width
allowed. Within the VAC, the old ordinance also required a filtered view, no clear-cutting. Trees that
were dead, dying, diseased, or safety hazards could be removed but had to be replaced with a tree a least
1" DBH. No new lawns, unnatural or non-native landscapes were allowed in the VAC. Today Oneida
County is proposing that a property owner may have more than one but must have 30 feet between each.
No minimum DBH defined for replanting cut trees within the buffer.
OCLRA Recommendation:
10. Adopt Oneida Countys 2001 ordinance shoreland vegetative buffer requirements allowing one
VAC with a filtered view.
Other Supporting Arguments:
Less clutter and more natural scenic beauty
More privacy and security for homeowners
Lake shore buffers help assure high level water quality

Replacement or Relocation of Pre-existing Structures

When a shoreland owner wishes to knock down and replace an existing primary structure, NR115
requires that the structure is at least 35 feet from the shoreline, is not rebuilt any closer to the shoreline,
and mitigation is done to offset any potential impact the pre-existing structure will have on water quality,
habitat and shoreline beauty. Before the county permits the rebuild they must determine that there is not
property to build a structure of a comparable size to the structure proposed that will result in compliance
with the shoreland setback requirement (ie 75 feet from the shoreline).
Several counties prohibit the rebuild of pre-existing structures destroyed or damaged by owner or general
deterioration, unless the structure can be brought into compliance with the ordinance. Today Oneida
County is proposing the requirements as NR115, except that there is still a requirement that all other preexisting structures on the lot or parcel be removed.
OCLRA Recommendation:
11. Adopt ordinance language stating that a pre-existing structure that is not in compliance with the
current ordinance that is destroyed or damaged by owner or general deterioration cannot be
rebuilt or repaired, unless it is brought into compliance (Ex. Price, Langlade County, Oneida
County (2001)).
Other Supporting Arguments:
For the sake of fairness, every property should be brought into compliance with the shoreline
zoning ordinance, if possible.
Allowing builders to build within the 75 foot setback should be a rare exception to the rule. In
the rare situations where eliminating setback averaging is woefully unfair to the landowner, they
may seek a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Variances in shoreland areas compromise
water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and natural scenic beauty. The effects of variances, though
they may be imperceptible on an individual site, accumulate lot by lot throughout the shoreland.
Therefore, allowing builders to build within the 75 foot setback should be a rare exception to the
rule.

5
Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association | March 12, 2015