INTRODUCTION
Local units of government in Wisconsin are charged with regulating land uses to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare; and they are encouraged to formulate policies and plans toward that end in advance. In carrying out this responsibility a major emphasis is usually placed on resource protection--fostering the wise use of waters, agricultural and forest lands, minerals, and other natural resources. Oftentimes the strength of such resource--based land use programs, particularly when challenged in a court of law, can be traced rather directly to the degree to which the locality has linked its resource policies, plans, and regulations to available natural resource data.
The following sketches one way land use programs may be grounded to the statistical information which exists for Wisconsin's water resources at the local level. The same method of regulating according to prior resource classification can be applied using different data sources in the case of other natural resources such as agricultural, forest, and mineral-bearing lands. Three general ingredients comprise the method: 1) a rationale, 2) a classification scheme, and 3) a regulatory program.
This plan will focus solely on classifying the surface water resource. Similar detailed data for streams and rivers does exist and can be built into local land use programs in basically the same way.
The regulatory program discussed later will pertain directly to the local zoning power on shorelands. A full-blown carrying-capacity approach could utilize the resource classification scheme for local surface water use regulations as well.
Once the classification system has been devised, it can be used for various purposes, zoning and non-zoning (e.g., surface water use regulations) alike. Also, the system can provide a basis for dealing not only with routine and typical development proposals but with such atypical and non-routine matters as PUDs, conditional uses, rezonings, back-lot developments, resort conversions, etc.
THE RATIONALE
There are two major reasons for utilizing this approach. First, lakes constitute important environmental and economic (recreation) resources in Wisconsin. And, second, with a reasonable amount of time and effort, it is possible to devise a local program more sensitive to an individual lake resource than is the minimum statewide standard in Wisconsin.
On the first reason, water resource importance, ten counties of northwest Wisconsin house approximately 4 percent of the state population, but contain almost 25 percent (more than 400 square miles) of the states's inland water acreage. This includes nearly 6,000 lakes which are unevenly distributed according to basic indicators such as size, shape and geography. For instance, more than two-thirds of the lakes are small, less than 25 acres in size, and about fifty lakes are 600 or more acres. Similarly, the breakdown for lake shape shows that while about half the lakes are fairly regular ("round") and the other half are less regular ("long") more than 350 lakes are highly irregular ("spider"). And, geographically, although one county has only 150 lakes, several have close to 1000 and most northern counties have between 300 and 500 lakes.
Recent trends in permanent and transient population movement, such as the so-called rural residency turnaround (in-migration), and changing recreational travel patterns also affect localities throughout the North differently and unevenly. But, in general, these trends have resulted in substantial pressures for lake-related development and have contributed to the need for more systematic management and growth studies such as this carrying-capacity plan.
A brief look at two simple and fundamental lake characteristics, size and shape, provides an orientation to a problem with Wisconsin's minimum state standard approach for land uses in shorelands. The left diagram shows two lakes of identical shape, but different size, super imposed on each other. Little Round Lake covers 50 water surface acres while Big Round Lake encompasses 200 acres. If we were to measure the shoreline length we would discover that although Big Round has four times the surface water acreage, its shoreline is only twice the length of Little Round. The right hand diagram on the other, shows two lakes of identical size (50 water surface acres, like Little Round) but different shapes--Long Lake and Round Lake. In spite of the fact that they have the same water surface area, Long Lake has 60 percent more shoreline length and is,therefore, potentially subject to much greater development and recreation user pressure, per water surface acre, than is Round Lake.
Table 1 shows how much the water surface area per developed shoreline lot would vary from lake to lake, if we assume that all the lakes could be fully developed at the state minimum standard of 100 feet per lot at the waterline. To the extent that we can agree that more water surface per lot generally translates into an increased capacity to carry or absorb the "shocks" (pollution, aesthetic degradation, etc.) which development imposes on the lake resource, we can conclude that large, regularly-shaped lakes (Big Round) have a greater absorptive capacity than do small, irregularly shaped lakes (Long Lake). And we can see that the use of a state standard (or any across-the-board standard of any dimension) ignores the existence of such variations. What we are not sure of, however, is precisely whether this is done at the expense of the most sensitive lakes (not protective enough), the least sensitive lakes (overly protective), or all lakes regardless of sensitivity (not protective enough or too protective).
Table 1: Full Development Potential at Wisconsin Minimum Lot Width
| Lake Name | Number Lots | WSA/lot |
| Long Lake (50 acres) | 85 | .59 |
| Round and Little Round (50 acres) | 53 | .96 |
| Big Round Lake (200 acres) | 106 | 1.92 |
THE CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
Resource classification schemes range from very simple sortings into several groups based on one or two distinctive characteristics to highly complex divisions derived from interrelating many variables. In the case of lake resources, an extremely simple sort is often suggested in the names of the lakes--Clear Lake vs Mud Lake, Bass or Trout Lakes, Big Spider Lake vs Little Spider Lake, etc. Limnologists, on the other hand, spend much of their time studying all facets of inland waters and classifying them into numerous categories based on lake genesis, geography, and trophic status. What type of classification scheme gets used in a particular situation generally depends on judgments in four fundamental areas:
1. The Nature of the Resource. Lakes are complex and dynamic systems with highly individual characteristics. They are also systems that interrelate intensively with other ecosystems such as land, air, wildlife, and fisheries. In truth, man's understanding of lakes and their interrelationships falls far short of the ideal, and even within the limits of presently available knowledge, requires such time-consuming and expensive investigation that is possible to establish relatively clear-cut, quantifiable cause and effect linkages only for a selected few demonstration projects. Contrariwise, man's studied observations concerning general lake processes are developed and accurate enough to permit, and even encourage, practical "middle--ground" approaches to management.
2. Data Availability. Much information exists and can be utilized in classification schemes ranging from the simple to the complex. In Wisconsin, for instance, at least three valuable sources are readily employable for local projects. One source is the Surface Water Resources report, prepared by the Department of Natural Resources, which exists for each county. It contains statistical tables with more than 20 different types of information on each lake in the jurisdiction. Another source is the even more detailed data which DNR keeps stored on computer tapes. This again exists by individual lake within each jurisdiction. And, another important source is the firsthand experience and perceptions which local lake users can bring to bear through their participation in a classification project.
3. Intended Use. Consideration of use helps assure relevancy and efficiency. It does not make good sense to classify lake resources into eight groupings if only three divisions are to be used in the local land use program. Likewise, it does not really pay to devote a lot of effort to interrelating 24 different types of information if an interplay of three or four variables will accomplish almost the same result. And it is senseless to use an overly simple classification scheme, like lake names, if not all lake resources are named or if the names are misleading and inaccurately based on subjective and non-verifiable criteria. For instance, many lakes are not named at all and, of the named lakes, only a handful of the names are descriptive. And, among the descriptive names are lakes such as Bass, Bluegill and Round (shape) may be verifiable, but Red (color) and Snake (shape) may not be. The participants from the jurisdiction, therefore, may play a judgmental role in identifying what is of primary concern to them, what is ultimately desired, and in reviewing alternative classification schemes for solving these problems and meeting their objectives.
4. User Friendly Schemes. The classification scheme is one which can be understood and accepted by those within the locality who must live by it as well as by those who must apply it. This is particularly important for land use programs. If people cannot follow the basic thrust of what is being done and why, they will probably challenge and reject it out of hand.
In this classification methodology, the focus is placed on rating lakes according to one basic index, vulnerability. The vulnerability determination amounts to scoring lakes on the basis of their physical parameters such as size, shape, depth, and flush potential. In those cases where additional and reliable qualitative data are available, a quality index may be incorporated as well. The quality determination is derived from scoring lakes according to characteristics of interest to the locality (fish and vegetative types and water quality parameters).
DATA INTERPRETATION
The discussion suggests that what is sought is a scheme which allows a locality to separate its highly vulnerable lake resources from those of lesser vulnerability. The locality can then provide maximum land use protection to lakes which could be expected to benefit most from this type of management (the regulatory incentive is high). Lakes which stand to benefit little from land use measures, on the other hand, would receive only minimum protection (the regulatory incentive is low). And lakes which fall in-between can be managed in accordance with a mid-level or moderate regulatory program. An alternative for these in-between lakes could be to scrutinize them further until a clearer decision concerning their sensitivity can be determined. This might mean looking at a new set of data variables (public land ownership and access, existing development, type and distribution of soils) which, for one reason or another (not readily available, too complex, etc.), had been omitted in the initial classification scheme.
In this example, local participants decided to proceed with a three-tier--maximum-moderate-minimum-classification system. This procedure allows a locality to reserve new data variables for lakes for which a re-classification is requested or for use when the regulatory agency is petitioned for a variance or special exception.
LAKE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MODEL
This model classification scheme utilizes a combination of natural resource factors that determine lake vulnerability or sensitivity.
Lake Surface Area - Lake surface area is an important determinant of the ability of a lake to support shoreline development and avoid lake user conflicts. As a general rule, smaller lakes (under 50 acres in size) are more susceptible to environmental degradation and visual impacts resulting from shoreland development and intensive recreational use.
The following scoring factors are used to rank lakes based on their surface area. The lower scores indicate greater lake vulnerability.
| Lake Surface Area |
|
| Less than 50 acres |
|
| 50 to 249 acres |
|
| 250 or more acres |
|
Maximum Depth - Lake maximum depth is used as a second indicator of vulnerability. Shallower lakes, which do not stratify, have greater circulation of dissolved nutrients that enter the lakes. These lakes tend to have a larger variety of aquatic plant communities that are valuable for a wide range of wildlife and fish. Beds of aquatic plant materials can easily be disturbed by intensive water recreation use and shoreline activities, such as cutting and chemical treatment of aquatic vegetation to create swimming and docking areas.
Shallow lakes are particularly susceptible to nutrient loading and turbidity problems, both of which can be increased by intensive shoreline development and recreational use. In general, shallower lakes are more appropriate for wildlife habitat protection and passive recreation than for motor boating, water skiing, and other more intensive lake uses associated with shoreline development.
The following scoring factors are used to rank lakes based on the maximum depth. The lower scores indicate greater lake vulnerability.
| Maximum Lake Depth Area |
|
| Less than 20 feet |
|
| 20 to 39 feet |
|
| 40 or more feet |
|
Lake Type - In Wisconsin, many of the smaller lakes are seepage lakes formed by groundwater seeping into depressions in the glacial outwash plain. Most of these lakes are "landlocked" and have no external drainage. These lakes are the most vulnerable to premature eutrophication and contamination caused by development in the shoreland zone.
Drainage lakes flow into the surface water system of rivers and streams. These lakes, along with man-made impoundments, possess varying degrees of ability to naturally circulate and flush nutrients and other forms of contaminants, but generally these lakes are less vulnerable to environmental damage than the seepage lakes. A third category of lakes is spring lakes that are fed primarily by natural springs. These lakes have intermediate vulnerability.
The following scoring is used to rank lake vulnerability with respect to lake type. The lower scores indicate greater lake vulnerability.
The following scoring is used to rank lake vulnerability with respect to lake type. The lower scores indicate greater lake vulnerability.
| Lake Type |
|
| Seepage Lake (S) |
|
| Spring Lake (SP) |
|
| Drainage Lake (D) |
|
Watershed Area - The natural ability of lakes to flush and circulate water is also a function of watershed size, lake volume, and average rainfall. Lakes with larger watersheds tend to have a higher volume of water circulating through them and may have higher flushing rates.
Lakes with smaller watersheds tend to have a lower nutrient input; however, nutrients accumulate because of longer retention times. Generally lakes with smaller watersheds and long retention times are more vulnerable to nutrient loading from activities that occur in the shoreland zone, which is a larger percentage of the total watershed area.
The following scoring is used to rank lake vulnerability with respect to watershed size. The lower scores indicate greater lake vulnerability.
| Watershed Size |
|
| Under 1 square mile |
|
| 1 to 9 square miles |
|
| 10 or more square miles |
|
Shoreline Development Factor (SDF) - Shoreline development factor (SDF) is a convenient method of expressing the degree of irregularity of the shoreline of a lake compared to the surface area. The SDF ratio is the length of shoreline versus the circumference of a circle having the same surface area as the lake. A perfectly round lake would have a surface area of 1.00. The SDF can never be less than 1.00.
Lakes with a higher SDF have more shoreline in relation to the surface area and thus are more vulnerable to development pressures per linear foot of shoreline that is developed. These lakes can more easily become overdeveloped and are more susceptible to various types of contamination and runoff resulting from shoreline development.
The following scoring is used to rank lake vulnerability with respect to the shoreline development factor (SDF). The lower scores indicate greater lake vulnerability.
| Shoreland Development Factor (SDF) |
|
| 2.00 or more |
|
| 1.50 to 1.99 |
|
| 1.00 to 1.49 |
|
Development Density - The existing level of residential density around a lake or on a river is an indicator of a water body's development status.
In previous studies such as the Minnesota Classification Scheme and observations of existing conditions on local northern Wisconsin lakes, a development density near 200 feet per structure indicates a high density ratio. This high development density in most cases indicates that the majority of the shoreline is developed and that the potential for additional new single-family dwellings is low. A lake with a high development density normally will score high and fall into the category of lakes requiring less development protection measures.
| Density (feet per structure) |
|
| 300 and less |
|
| 301 - 600 |
|
| 601 and greater |
|
| no structures within 300' of shoreline |
|
LAKE CLASSIFICATION SCORING CRITERIA SUMMARY
| Lake Surface Area |
|
| Less than 50 acres |
|
| 50 to 249 acres |
|
| 250 acres or more |
|
| Maximum Lake Depth |
|
| Less than 20 feet |
|
| 20 to 39 feet |
|
| 40 or more feet |
|
| Lake Type |
|
| Seepage Lake (SE) |
|
| Spring Lake (SP |
|
| Drainage Lake (DG) |
|
| Watershed Size |
|
| Under 1 square mile |
|
| 1 to 9 square miles |
|
| 10 or more square miles |
|
| Shoreline Development Factor (SDF) |
|
| 2.00 or more |
|
| 1.50 to 1.99 |
|
| 1.00 to 1.49 |
|
| Density (feet per structure) |
|
| 300 and less |
|
| 301 - 600 |
|
| 601 and greater |
|
| no structures within 300' of shoreline |
|
| Overall Vulnerability Ranking Ranking |
| Protection Level |
| Total score 14 or over |
| Minimum |
| Total score 10 to 13 |
| Moderate |
| Total score 9 or less |
| Maximum |
THE REGULATORY PROGRAM
After a locality has worked out its classification scheme, its next step is to attach to it a regulatory program. There are two basic mechanisms that can be used. The locality can vary the density of development around the lake and/or the distance of development from the lake. As illustrated earlier, the former, varying the distance around the lake, has the effect of assigning greater or lesser amounts of water surface area (or water volume) per lot per lake, depending primarily on a judgement of absorptive carrying capacity of the water. The latter, varying distance from the lake, was not illustrated earlier, but it has the effect of allowing closer or farther development, depending on a judgment which relies primarily on a sense of absorptive carrying capacity of shoreland adjacent to the lake. In actual fact, the use of either mechanism, or both in combination affects the carrying capacity of a lake's total micro-environment, the water, and the land.
The following contrasts the use of these mechanisms in Wisconsin and Minnesota at the state levels. Wisconsin opted to establish a minimum lot width and structural setback that, as was explained earlier, is insensitive to any particulars of a lake's micro-environment. Thus, a high quality-highly vulnerable lake receives a base-level of protection identical to that of a low quality-lowly vulnerable lake. The state of Minnesota, on the other hand,varies both the lot width and structural setback (and, therefore, by extension the density around, and distance from, the lake) depending on whether the lake belongs to a class of lakes judged to have a greater or lesser carrying capacity.
Contrast of How Two Extreme Classes of Lakes Would be Regulated in Minnesota and Wisconsin
| Setback Burnett County Minimum Standard |
| Structural Setback |
| RR-3 High Vulnerability |
| 75 feet |
| RR-2 Medium Vulnerability |
| 75 feet |
| RR-1 Low Vulnerability |
| 75 feet |
| --- | ||
| Minnesota State Standards+ | ||
| High Quality/High Vulnerability |
| 200 feet |
| Low Quality/Low Vulnerability |
| 75 feet |
This is an overgeneralized presentation of the Minnesota system which relies on four classes of lakes and three sets of regulatory level, the density around, and distance from the lake depending on whether the lake belongs to a class of lakes judged to have a greater or lesser carrying capacity.
From the point of view of grounding a land use program to the carrying capacity of adjacent resources like lakes, any across-the-board minimum standard, is equally insensitive. The latter, of course, does provide a higher level of protection than the former. But it is still not known how much more protection, or around which lakes, there might be regulatory overkill or underkill.
In reality, since lakes are such complex and dynamic systems, no amount of classification-regulatory effort will result in a land use program where one can say with any degree of accuracy how much additional protection one more foot of lot width or setback, or one hundred more feet for that matter, will provide a given lake resource. Users of the method described in this paper should accept that limitation as fundamental. However, a tier of generalized regulatory levels can be established which will assure that a higher degree of protection will be assigned to more sensitive lakes, while a lower degree will go to less sensitive environments. What the levels might actually be may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction since, to be most effective, they will be based on judgments combining the following ingredients: 1) the locality's wishes; 2) the experience of others (states and localities) with various protective levels; 3) research guidelines for the parameters receiving emphasis in the program; and 4) professional, "political," and public input and common-sense.
SUMMARY
LAKE DEVELOPMENT POLICY
The following policy statements should be adopted as the guidelines for implementing Burnett County Inland Lakes Classification System and accompanying recommended ordinance changes:
SHORELAND REGULATIONS
Those provisions of the text of this ordinance and the zoning maps and district boundaries that pertain to shorelands as defined in Wisconsin Statutes Section 59.692 and 59.694 shall be effective immediately upon adoption of this ordinance and shall not be subject to the approval or disapproval of any town board.
(1) Setbacks
For setbacks from the ordinary high water mark of navigable waters, the following setback regulations shall apply:
(a) LOTS THAT ABUT ON NAVIGABLE WATERS: All buildings and structures, except stairways, walkways, piers, and boat hoists, satellite dishes under 24" in diameter, and open fences shall be set back at least 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of navigable waters or as designated in the lake classification development standards.
(b) SETBACK AVERAGING: Setback averaging may be allowed when existing principal buildings within 100 feet either side of a proposed building site (to include additions) do not conform to required setbacks. In no such case will a setback less than 75' from the ordinary high water mark be allowed.
(c) DECKS, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES PROHIBITED: Decks, observation platforms, satellite dishes over 24" in diameter, retaining walls and buildings are expressly prohibited in the shoreline setback area. Retaining walls may be allowed only after review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator and the County Conservationist.
(d) STAIRWAYS, AND WALKWAYS :Stairways and elevated walkways
are a permitted use exempt from the shoreline setback requirements provided:
(e) FENCES All fences shall meet the shoreland setbacks as required in the Lake Class Development Standards. 4.4(7)c.
(e) WETLAND SETBACKS
All buildings and structures, except stariways, walkways, pies, boat hoists, satellite dishes under 24" in diameter, and open fences shall be setback 40 feet from any wetland boundary.
(2) Removal of Shoreline Cover
There shall be a shoreline vegetation protection area on each parcel which shall extend from the ordinary high water mark to a line 25 feet less than the required setback for structures but, in no case, less than 35 feet landward from the ordinary high water mark. Within this area, vegetation removal (including trees, shrubs and ground cover) and land disturbing activities are prohibited with the following exceptions:
(a) One viewing/access corridor more or less perpendicular to the shore and no more than 30 feet wide may be established. Limited tree removal, pruning and mowing will be permitted. Clearcutting, filling, grading and other land disturbing activities are not permitted in this area. On contiguous frontage, there shall be a 30 foot separation of uncut area between adjoining view corridors.
(b) Limited pruning and mowing will be allowed in the area greater than 35 feet from the ordinary high water mark.
(c) Pedestrian access, walkways, pathways, and stairways must be located in the access/viewing corridor and also subject to section 4.4(1)d, unless such location is not feasible due to steep slopes, wet soils, or similar limiting conditions.
(d) Pier, wharf and lift placement must also be confined to waters immediately adjacent to viewing/access corridor unless such location is not feasible due to steep slopes, wet soils, or similar limiting conditions.
(e) Normal maintenance of existing vegetative buffer strips.
(3) Forest Management Programs
From the inland edge of the thirty-five (35) foot strip to the outer limits of the shoreland, the harvesting and management of trees shall be allowed when accomplished under forestry best management practices. The maintenance and improvement of water quality shall be emphasized in all their timber harvesting operations. The purpose of this order will favor long-lived species adapted to the site and will prescribe slash disposal methods necessary for aesthetic value.
(4) Filling, Grading, Lagooning, Ditching, Excavating and Dredging
Filling, grading, lagooning, ditching, excavating and dredging may be permitted in accord with state and federal law where protection against erosion, sedimentation, and impairment of fish and aquatic life has been assured. A land use permit shall be required for any filling or grading:
(a) On the bed of a navigable body of water. In addition a permit shall be obtained from the Department of Natural Resources under the provisions of Section 30.11 and 30.12, Wisconsin Statutes.
(b) Of any area which is 300 feet, horizontal distance of the ordinary high water mark of navigable water where there is:
a. Filling, grading, lagooning, excavating or ditching in a SW-1 District may be permitted only as provided under Section 3.3(13)(a)(2) and (3).
In addition, a permit shall be obtained from the Department of Natural Resources where more than 10,000 square feet of the bank of a navigable body of water is exposed by grading or otherwise removing top soil as provided in Section 30.19, Wisconsin Statutes. A land use permit is not required for soil conservation practices such as terraces, diversions and grassed waterways which are used for sediment retardation.
(c) Lagooning, ditching, excavating or dredging: A land use permit shall be required before constructing, dredging or commencing work on any artificial waterway, canal, ditch, lagoon, pond, lake or similar waterway which is within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark on a navigable body of water or where the purpose is ultimate connections with a navigable body of water. A land use permit is not required for soil conservation practices as terraces, diversions and grassed waterways which are used for sediment retardation. In addition, a permit shall be obtained from the Department of Natural Resources or any other state agency having jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 30.19, Wisconsin Statutes.
(d) Provisions for acquiring land use permits for such activities stated in Section 4.4(4):
a. Any permits or approvals required by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Public Service Commission or other agencies for such activities shall be obtained before being granted a county permit.
b. Any such activity which is proposed to be performed in contemplation of a subdivision or other development or land use change which requires zoning, subdivision or sanitary code approvals shall obtain such approvals before being granted a county permit for the filling, grading, lagooning, dredging or relocation of waterway.
c. Any such activity which involves a wetland that is not within the SW-1 or W-1 District shall be granted a permit only upon a finding that the proposed activity will not result in a significant impairment of the natural functions performed by the wetlands.
d. The Zoning Administrator shall take into consideration the environmental impact as pertains to the following: natural setting, scenic view aesthetic value, effect on wildlife and aquatic habitat, natural vegetation, etc.
3. Conditions attached to approved county grading permits: The Zoning Administrator shall attach conditions to each approved permit to assure compliance of the activity with the standards of paragraphs a. through d. above. These conditions may include the following, without limitation because of enumeration:
a. Time limits on the exposure of bare grounds.
b. Required use of temporary or permanent ground cover.
c. Required use of diversions, silting basins, terraces and other measures to trap sediments.
d. Required stabilization of fills and of sides of channels and other natural, artificial or relocated waterways and use of bulkheads or riprapping on any slopes in excess of two (2) units horizontal distance to one (1) unit vertical.
e. Required design characteristics to prevent undue restriction of floodways or diminution of the storage capacity of floodplains.
(5) PIERS AND BOAT SHELTERS:
(a) Piers may only be placed by the riparian property owner in the riparian zone. No permits will be required for piers meeting the following criteria and state guidelines:
(b) Piers may be placed to the line of navigation which generally means the three foot depth contour, an established pierhead line or depth required by boat to be berthed. A pier may not unreasonably obstruct navigable waters.
(c) Piers shall be a maximum width of 6 feet, shall not enclose any portion of water and shall not have decks, platforms, or other construction not essential for berthing of boats.
(d) The number of berths or moorings shall be limited to two for the first 50 feet of shoreline and one for each additional 50 feet.
(e) Only one pier shall be permitted for each minimum lakeshore frontage as required by the Lake Classification.
(f) Piers shall meet all state guidelines.
"Pier" means any structure extending into navigable waters from the shore with water on both sides, built or maintained for the purpose of providing a berthing or mooring place for watercraft or for loading or unloading cargo or passengers onto or from watercraft and may include a temporary boat hoist and a boat shelter which is removed seasonally. [s.30.01, Stats.] Mooring (noun) means a mooring anchor and mooring buoy together with attached chains, cables, ropes and pennants and related equipment and is considered to be a storage space for a single watercraft.
(g) Permanent boat shelters are not allowed.
(6) Lake Class Development Standards for Waterfront Property on Navigable Waters:
(a) After adoption of this section, or an amendment thereto, no lot area shall be so reduced that the dimensional and yard requirements required by this ordinance cannot be met. Parcels of land existing and of record shall meet the minimum requirements of Section 3.4 and lots existing and of records, i.e., documented by recording of a metes and bounds description; or a Certified Survey Map; or a recorded platted subdivision, but of substandard size to the Lake Class Development Standards are hereby not nonconforming to the parcel size. The construction of new dwellings or replacement dwellings; additions to existing structures and the construction of accessory buildings when a principal structure exists on the premises may be allowed by permit provided all other requirements, regulations and setbacks can be met.
(b) The following classification lists identify lakes named in "Surface Water Resources of Burnett County", published by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and appearing by name on the 1:24000 scale topographic maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey, commonly referred to as the U.S.G.S. Quadrangle Maps.
All unnamed lakes listed in the "Surface Water Resources of Burnett County", Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and all named lakes 50 acres in size or less are considered Class 3 protection lakes.
In addition, any lake inadvertently omitted from the "Surface Water Resources of Burnett County" over 50 acres in size will be classified according to available information and non-listed lakes 50 acres or less in size will be considered Class 3 protection lakes.
It should be noted that Burnett County's shoreline regulation jurisdiction extends only to those portions of shoreline outside the boundaries of any incorporated municipality.
Development standards for rivers and streams refer to all rivers and streams in the Burnett County deemed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to be navigable.
There are un-named lakes that have "local" names and for the purpose of this classification are considered Class 3 lakes.
The RR-2 (Residential-Recreation District), RR-3 (Residential-Recreation District), A (Exclusive Agricultural District), A-1 (Agricultural-Transition District), A-2 (Agricultural-Residential District) and F-1 (Forestry District) zone districts supersede the lake classification development standards.
(c) Dimensional Requirements
(d) List of Lakes
Burnett County Lakes Classification
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
(7) Lake Access: All private lake accesses; lake access easements; or outlots; deeded or contractual accesses for the purpose of lake access shall meet the following requirements:
(a) The access to a navigable waterway for backlot or off-lake development shall meet the minimum lot and parcel size requirements of the Lake Class Development Standards. The lot width shall be measured at right angles at all points along its side lot lines and the minimum required lot area shall exclude any wetlands. A contiguous buffer area of 25 feet along each side lot line running the full depth of the lot shall remain in its natural state. The cutting of vegetation or trees or the construction/placement of buildings within the buffer zone is prohibited.
(b) The number of single-family lots, building sites, single-family units or single-family condominium units utilizing said access shall be limited to four (4).
(c) Only one (1) accessory building will be allowed on the lake access parcel meeting the requirements of Section 4.42 (5); except that actual boat storage and/or the connection of any pressurized water system is prohibited.
(d) The creation or use of land for a lake access shall be by conditional use only. The Zoning Committee shall consider the size, shape, depth, present and potential use of the lake, and the effect of the private access on public rights in navigable waters.
(8) Resorts and Condominiums:
(a) The construction of additional rental cabins/dwellings within an existing resort or the construction of additional dwelling units within a recorded condominium shall meet the minimum lot width and parcel size requirements of the Lake Class Development Standards.
To determine the number of total cabins/dwelling units allowed, take the total lot or parcel size and divide by the lake class size requirement. No principal structure shall be located less than 20 feet from an existing principal structure and shall meet all water line, road, lot line, and septic setbacks.
4.9 SHORELINE SETBACK NONCONFORMITIES
(a) The total area of the existing structure and the proposed addition does not exceed 1,500 square feet of enclosed living area including any walkout basement:
(b) All expansion is no closer to the water than the landward facade of the existing principal structure (placement of standard or walkout basements under existing structures is prohibited); except for a one time maximum 144 square foot expansion (including open patios and decks) which is no closer to the ordinary high water mark than the closest setback of the structure provided further that such addition does not extend toward the ordinary high water mark beyond the shoreline facade. than existing structure;
(c) Existing nonconforming accessory structures are removed from the property; and
(d) The property owner implements a plan approved by the County Land Conservationist which restores the shoreline cover buffer zone as per Section 4.4(2).
(3) Expansion of nonconforming principal structures between 75' and the required set back from the O.H.W.M. is allowed provided expansion is at least 75' from the O.H.W.M.
CAUTION: All information contained in the Burnett County Land Use pages is provided to inform property owners of minimum requirements and the information is subject to change. Contact the Burnett County Zoning office prior to building and or developing any lakeshore property for permits and most current information.