Posts In Zoning Legal
One of the truly great opportunities Northern Wisconsin offers is the widespread diversity available to hunters during hunting season. From renting a rustic cabin to purchasing acreage for personal hunting advantages, the Northwoods not only has a vast array of game, it offers the best atmosphere to enhance every hunting experience.
It’s only a few weeks until deer gun hunting season opens and the DNR has made quite a few changes to the program this year. Perhaps the most interesting (and the one that makes the most sense) is the dissolution of the Deer Management Units (DMUs). Now county lines will be used to establish rules applying to boundary limitations.
There are Deer Management Zones and the map for these zones is included in the webpage link; http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/wm/WM0554.pdf.
More than half of the counties in the state have a ban on baiting and feeding deer. The counties where Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has been found as well as areas within 10 miles of the area known to have CWD are included this area. The bottom third of the state, with the exception of Ouzakee County, has the ban and that ban reaches as far north as Marathon and Shawano counties. In the northwest part of the state, Burnett, Washburn, Polk and Barron counties also have the same ban.
The laws for feeding or baiting deer are quite extensive and hunters may want to refresh their memories or pick up more information at http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/wm/WM0554.pdf. For example, baiting can only be done no sooner than 24 hours prior to deer archery season in counties where it is allowed.
This year there is no T-Zone hunt in December in the Northern Forest Zone. There is a four-day antlerless hunt-only in the Central Farmland and Forest Zones Dec. 11-14. This year’s bonus tags are for bucks and the rules, taken from the DNR website, are as follows:Bonus buck opportunities will be offered in the Southern Farmland Zone units only.
by Mark Scheets of KCM on November 21, 2013
Throughout the home buying process there can be various hurdles to jump over to make sure everything goes smoothly. In today’s culture, we are finding more often unmarried couples are purchasing their first homes together. Although this sounds like a great plan, there are precautions that need to be taken in order to make sure the process is done right. Doing your research beforehand can alleviate any headaches. From a financial sense it is more difficult to break the co-ownership of a house, than it is to get a divorce, if things turn sour.
When making the decision to purchase a home with your significant other, you and partner must know that just like with marriage, a property agreement is a legal contract. One of the more important aspects of purchasing a home together is knowing how the investment will be split. In many cases, one partner may initially invest more money into the home than the other. This may cause issues in the future if things don’t work out due to the fact that legally one person may end up owning more of the house than the other.Plan Now
If the relationship were to end, a dividing of the assets needs to take place. Although everyone in a relationship hopes for the best, preparing for the worst-case scenario will alleviate any hassle in the future. The best way to protect yourself is to come to an agreement as soon as possible while you both are still happy. If there were to be any future issues, it could get real ugly resolving things if steps were not taken care of from the start.
Digital Edition: Real Estate Magazine
Boundary Lines: Wisconsin Supreme Court Re-establishes Bright Line Between Private and Public Rights
By: Tom Larson
In Rock-Koshkonong Lake District v. Department of Natural Resources, 2013 WI 74, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an important ruling for waterfront property owners in Wisconsin. The ruling provides property owners with greater certainty regarding the regulatory limits of the Public Trust Doctrine, which is often used to define the boundary between where the rights of property owners begin and the rights of the public end. Moreover, the ruling limits the authority of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to lower lake water levels without considering the economic impact on waterfront property owners and businesses.
The case involved a dispute about water levels on Lake Koshkonong, which is a shallow lake formed by a dam on the Rock River near Janesville. The dam, which was originally constructed in the 1850s, fell into disrepair and had difficulty maintaining consistent water levels. In 2002, the dam was repaired and the DNR lowered the water levels by approximately one foot to better protect wetlands located beneath the dam. The DNR maintained that it had the authority to reduce water levels in the lake under the Wisconsin Constitution’s Public Trust Doctrine, which provides that the waters of the state are held in trust by the state for the benefit of all. (The Public Trust Doctrine has been interpreted to mean that the state owns the navigable waters of the state and the land under navigable lakes as determined by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM)). As a result of the lowered water levels, the shorelines began to increase significantly, making it more difficult to access piers and use the lake for boating purposes due to the shallow water.
In 2003, a group of waterfront property owners and businesses petitioned the DNR to raise the water levels of Lake Koshkonong.
-- information provided from the Wisconsin REALTORS® Association (WRA)
Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the health care legislation, all of its major provisions remain in effect, including the new tax that was designed to affect upper income taxpayers. The 3.8% tax is imposed ONLY on those with more than $200,000 of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) ($250,000 on a joint return). The tax applies to investment income, defined as interest, dividends, capital gains and net rents. These items are all included in an individual's AGI. A formula will determine what portion, if any, of these types of investment income would be subject to the tax.
The tax is NOT a transfer tax on real estate sales and similar transactions.
Not long after the tax was enacted, erroneous and misleading documents went viral on the Internet and created a great deal of misunderstanding and made the tax into something far more draconian than the actual provisions.
The new tax does NOT eliminate the benefits of the $250,000/$500,000 exclusion on the sale of a principal residence. Thus, ONLY that portion of a gain above those thresholds is included in AGI and could be subject to the tax.
Eliason Realty of the North, Inc. encourages you to contact your accountant to fulyl understand how this tax may or may not apply in your specific situation.
The amount of tax will vary from individual to individual because the elements that comprise AGI differ from taxpayer to taxpayer. Please visit these links for additional in-depth information:
http://speakingofrealestate.blogs.realtor.org/2010/11/24/the-3-8-tax-is-not-a-real-estate-transfer-tax/ (A video)
http://www.ksefocus.com/billdatabase/clientfiles/172/8/1437.pdf (informational brochure)
Also see the article at http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/20/3379120/health-care-and-housing-a-taxing.html
-shared from the Wisconsin REALTORS® Association by
Eliason Realty of the North, Inc.
Vilas County Wisconsin Real Estate Brokers
On April 2, 2012, Governor Walker signed into law 2011 Wisconsin Act 167, legislation that grandfathers almost all existing piers. In addition, the new law eliminates the pier registration requirement and creates new standards for piers placed on or after April 17, 2012. Finally, the new law guarantees that waterfront property owners have a right to place a pier, even if the property is located in areas that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) considers to be environmentally significant.Background
In 2007, Wisconsin lawmakers enacted a law that attempted to grandfather 99 percent of the existing piers from DNR permitting requirements. (2007 Wisconsin Act 204.) To be eligible for grandfathering, a pier was required to meet the following standards:The pier must have been originally placed prior to February 6, 2004. The width of the pier could be no wider than eight feet. A loading platform or deck was allowed as long as it is located at the lakeward end of the pier and the platform had a surface area no greater than either (a) 200 square feet, which may be any width, or (b) 300 square feet, if the deck/platform is no wider than 10 feet.
In addition, the pier must have been registered with the DNR by April 1, 2011. The registration deadline was later changed to April 1, 2012.
However, both the DNR and lawmakers discovered that many more piers than originally anticipated would not qualify for grandfathering. In addition, very few piers that did qualify for grandfathering were registered with the DNR.
Accordingly, lawmakers decided that it would be best to resolve the pier grandfathering issue once and for all by grandfathering all existing piers.
Under the new law, all existing piers placed before April 17, 2012 are grandfathered unless:a.
Senate Bill 472 passed both houses and was enacted April 2, 2012, and published April 16, 2012.
The resulting legislation, Wisconsin ACT 170, provides significant protections for real estate owners in Vilas County and across Northern Wisconsin. The new law addresses certain shoreland zoning standards and ordinances thta regulate the repair and expansion of nonconforming structures. Among other protections, the law prohibits rules that call for the removal of a non-conforming building, premises, structure or fixture by an amortization ordinance. (amortization ordinances call for a nonconforming structure to exist, but only for a period of time).
"An ordinance enacted under this section may not prohibit, or limit based on cost, the repair, maintenance, renovation, or remodeling of a nonconforming structure."
There are a number of other limits that are placed on local governments and hsoreland zoning to protect property owners. We urge you to click and read the law which is 2.5 pages long here: