Campground Workgroup Items 05/21/2021

Home Browse Search

you will get stopped for speeding at say 58 is probably less than getting hit by lightning. I'm not comparing the two, rather pointing out that the law and what is enforced are at times not the same. I am not opposed to requesting the state to review the statute and enforcement of it. It is at least possible they will do so. I'm also not overly optimistic that they will hop right to it. If anything in my long and sometimes painful relationship with the State of Wisconsin I have learned never to count on it. Moratoriums are designed to be temporary measures for study and learning, followed by legislative action if appropriate. While I am sure there will be consultation with legal advisors I'm not sure that we have grounds for extension. It's possible but doubtful. The more I think about it I would rather be on the other side of the courtroom for that hearing. Speaking of courtrooms, we have a couple cases pending regarding campgrounds that will provide clarity when they are adjudicated. Hopefully the courts will provide guidance that settle any questions. Until such time we will do what can with the tools we have. Thank you for your input. Don Taylor Chairman Burnett County Board of Supervisors Sent from my iPad On May 21, 2021, at 1:30 PM, Jon Day <johnnyboyday@mac.com<mailto:johnnyboyday@mac.com>>wrote: To Members of the Campground Work Group, Board Chair Taylor, 1st Vice Chair Peterson, 2nd Vice Chair Sybers, Land Services Director Jason Towne I think you will find the result of my Open Records Request interesting. It gets to the heart of the problem facing the county's campground controversy centers primarily around 79.11(1). This is the 8 out of 12 month occupancy rule in the state code. Confusion around this rule, its meaning, interpretation and enforcement is really the crux of the problem we are having in Burnett County. Until this law is clarified, any new campground approved could be in direct violation of state law. There is clearly a major disconnect between the current interpretation and enforcement efforts by DATCP and the intent of 79.11(1) as written in 2016 (see page 6 and 7). Specifically,today, Mr. Thaddeus stated DATCP's interpretation of 79.11 (1) Campsite Use, that it's about how long the"individual"occupies the campsite and that an"individual"cannot occupy a campsite for more than 8 of 12 consecutive months. He said in his comments that ATCP allows a camping unit to stay on one campsite all year long. But when you read the DHS Rule Making documents, they clearly focus on a"camping unit"not being allowed to occupy a"campsite"for more than 8 of 12 months specifically to prevent campgrounds from becoming permanent residences. That is a gigantic gap in law intent vs law enforcement. What ATCP is saying with their interpretation is this: the state wrote into law a requirement that individuals sleep somewhere other than their camper at least one night out of every 8 months... We have to ask,why would the state want a law telling an"individual"they absolutely have sleep away from their campsite at least one night every 8 months? If that were the true intent, wouldn't they require campground operators to monitor and track every person, every day, in every campsite? Then go to one camper: "Ok, Mr. Jones, you've been in your camper now every night for 7 1/2 months, I need you to take a break and go stay in a motel for just ONE NIGHT, and then you can come back and I'll restart the clock on your next 8 months of continuous 2