Watertown boards direct staff to draft amendments to CL lake zoning after joint session

The City of Watertown Plan Commission and City Council met jointly March 21 and voted to pursue amendments to the CL (commercial lake) zoning district, instructing staff to prepare draft language for all proposed changes and to convene a joint work session to review them.

The meeting’s advisory ballots gave the clearest guidance: after a first ballot produced a majority in each body for option two—“amend the ordinance”—the councils considered two subprocedures. The Plan Commission reported a unanimous preference for option 2B (consider all proposed amendments together) and the City Council likewise signaled majority support for 2B. Members agreed to forward proposals to the chair and a designated commissioner, who will send the consolidated list to staff for drafting.

Why it matters: the CL district governs commercial uses near Watertown’s lakes and has been the subject of repeated disputes over whether certain uses, such as campgrounds and short‑term rentals, should be permitted, conditional or prohibited. Speakers from both bodies framed the vote as an attempt to give clearer rules to developers while protecting long‑time lake residents.

Council and commission members placed emphasis on several recurring concerns. Several members said that treating Lake Kesca and Lake Pelican identically raises practical problems and that the ordinance’s 50% lot‑coverage rule can unfairly penalize parcels that include protected water or wetlands. Others raised noise, parking and enforcement issues tied to campgrounds and short‑term rental activity, and said some uses now categorized as “permitted” should be conditional so neighbors and the Planning Commission can review proposals case by case.

Councilman Jeff Brink described the CL district as “a good compromise” that includes protections for neighborhoods while allowing measured development; he said the ordinance could be made “a little bit more development friendly” through targeted amendments. Multiple commissioners and councilmembers urged staff to focus on drafting clear, objective criteria so that development applicants understand whether a project is likely to move forward.

How the process will work: members agreed staff will draft ordinance language based on the consolidated submissions and return it to the Planning Commission for vetting and recommendation; zoning changes require Planning Commission review before the City Council may act. The bodies agreed a joint work session will be scheduled so members can review the consolidated list of proposed amendments and set priorities and timing for staff work. Members explicitly acknowledged that some items may take substantial research and that the work session is not expected to finalize every drafting detail.

What was decided (formal actions): the bodies recorded their advisory ballots and then agreed to proceed under option 2B—consider all proposed amendments as submitted—and to route those proposals to staff for drafting and to the Planning Commission for due process review. The meeting closed after scheduling guidance and an adjournment motion.

Next steps and timeline: councilmembers and commissioners were asked to send proposed amendments and supporting rationale to the chair and a designated commissioner within the stated time frame so staff can compile the materials ahead of the joint work session. No ordinance language was adopted at the March 21 meeting; Planning Commission review and subsequent Council action will follow the staff drafting and public‑notice process.