POLK COUNTY, WI — Former Wisconsin State Representative Adam Jarchow is accusing Polk County leadership and zoning staff of misrepresenting proposed changes to the county’s shoreland zoning ordinance, alleging the revisions go far beyond what county officials have publicly claimed.
In a sharply worded letter sent to Polk County Board members, Jarchow argues the proposal does not align with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ model ordinance, improperly encroaches on town zoning authority, and could expose the county to legal challenges.
The full letter, sent by Jarchow to county officials, is published below in its entirety.
Full Letter from Adam Jarchow:
Dear Polk County Board Members:
There is something rotten in the Polk County Zoning Department. In fact, I believe the rot infects the entire Environmental Services division and the leadership of the county in general.
As many of you are aware, the zoning department has been working on changes to the shoreland ordinance for some time. Many of us have repeatedly expressed our alarm at the proposed changes and the process in general. We have been ignored by all of the County leadership from the County Administrator, to the Division Director to the Zoning Administrator. Ignoring citizens who have been intensely interested in County Zoning for longer than any of these people have held their current positions is bad. But, what’s worse? Now, the leadership seems to be expressly lying to (or at the very least, misleading) local elected officials about the nature of the proposal.
I attach a public notice that was recently sent to local officials (and I have copied those local officials, so they would be able to see the actual facts). You will note that the notice states the following:
“The proposed shoreland amendments include updating the current ordinance to align with the DNR model ordinance language which includes removing language that exempts town’s with their own zoning from certain general provisions”
This is simply false. It’s not a mistake or a difference of opinion. It is flat out false. The people you are charged with overseeing seem to be peddling falsehoods to local elected officials.
In no way, shape or form does the updated ordinance “align with the model ordinance”.
I have attached a copy of the model ordinance (which can be found on the DNR website). For convenience, I have formatted for Polk County, and removed the explanations and optional provisions and made some other minor adjustments to align with the statutes. But generally speaking, the attached is a pretty fair representation of the model ordinance. I also attach the most recent version of the county shoreland draft.
I urge you to compare the two. In no way does the county draft “align” with the model ordinance. The staff statement to local elected officials is a complete misrepresentation.
The county shoreland ordinance draft continues to contain numerous provisions that far exceed shoreland authority and reach into general zoning. Some of these include, agricultural regulation, shoreland district boundaries, bunkhouses, tourist rooming houses, use of fertilizer, number of structures allowed on a lot and many, many more.
Now, reasonable people can disagree whether these ordinance provisions should be continued in one form or another. But there can be no disagreement that they fall far outside the model ordinance language. All you have to do is set them side by side and you will easily see the proposal in no way “aligns” with the model ordinance.
The ordinance provisions also clearly encroach on general town zoning authority. It is the reason why years ago, the then Corporation Counsel and I negotiated the language exempting the towns with their own zoning from the general zoning provisions. Failure to do so risked a lawsuit. Stripping that provision will renew that threat of legal action. At the time, I urged the county to remove the general zoning provisions from the shoreland ordinance and place them in the general zoning section of the county ordinances. Instead, the county retained these general zoning provisions in its shoreland ordinance, but expressly excluded towns with their own zoning from complying with the same. It was a reasonable compromise. Blowing up that compromise is idiotic as it will cause confusion and almost certainly result in litigation.
To say I’m disappointed is an understatement. For many years, under prior County leadership, we had zoning peace. But, the current leadership seems to be determined to revive the old zoning wars. Why? It’s unnecessary. This process has been completely broken. Misleading, or lying to, local officials and the public should be a fireable offense. Anyone involved, should face discipline.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
-- Adam Jarchow
Resources:
Last Update: Jan 27, 2026 1:55 pm CST
