An Act to repeal 59.692 (1d) and 59.692 (2m); to amend 59.692 (1k) (a) (intro.), 59.692 (1k) (a) 2. (intro.), 59.692 (1k) (a) 2m., 59.692 (1k) (a) 4., 59.692 (1k) (am) (intro.), 59.692 (4) (b), 59.692 (5m), 61.353 (3) (intro.) and 62.233 (3) (intro.); to create 59.692 (1k) (ag) of the statutes; Relating to: the restrictiveness of shoreland zoning ordinances. (FE)
Summary
AB1070 would change Wisconsin’s shoreland zoning law by reducing several state-law limits on how restrictive county, village, and city shoreland ordinances may be. Under current law, local shoreland zoning rules generally cannot be more restrictive than Department of Natural Resources (DNR) standards in certain areas. This bill would repeal provisions that bar local governments from being more restrictive in some respects, including regulation of matters already covered by DNR shoreland standards and construction on substandard lots.
The bill also changes the relationship between DNR and local boards of adjustment in variance cases. It would remove the current prohibition on DNR appealing a county decision to grant or deny a shoreland variance, while still allowing DNR to provide an opinion when requested by a county board of adjustment. In addition, the bill would delete language stating that DNR and counties may not impair a landowner’s interest in shoreland property, while leaving other shoreland zoning limitations in place.
Impact
AB1070 would amend s. 59.692 and related municipal provisions in the Wisconsin statutes governing shoreland zoning. Its practical effect would be to give counties, villages, and cities more flexibility to adopt and enforce shoreland zoning ordinances that are stricter than current state standards in certain areas, while also allowing DNR and counties to impose fees for maintenance, repair, replacement, restoration, rebuilding, remodeling, and certain vertical expansions of nonconforming or setback-area structures. The bill would also remove statutory language that currently prevents DNR from appealing local variance decisions and would repeal provisions that preempt inconsistent local ordinances in the affected areas.
Sentiment
The available record shows little formal debate or voting history, so overall sentiment cannot be measured from committee action. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to reflect a policy shift toward greater local regulatory authority and more tools for DNR and counties to manage shoreland development. Because the bill was introduced and referred to committee, it was at an early stage and had not yet generated recorded votes or transcript-based support/opposition in the provided materials.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between property rights and environmental or local land-use regulation. Supporters would likely favor giving counties and municipalities more discretion to make shoreland rules stricter than state minimums and to charge fees for certain work on nonconforming structures. Opponents would likely object that repealing limits on local restrictiveness and removing the “impair the interest of a landowner” language could increase regulatory burdens on waterfront property owners, especially for repairs, rebuilding, and vertical expansions of existing structures. Another likely dispute is the expanded role for DNR in appealing variance decisions, which could be viewed as strengthening state oversight over local land-use decisions.