January 5, 2026
Revised Newsletter
ACTION ALERT!
CITY OF SHEBOYGAN TO TOSS OUT ZONING ORDINANCE LIMITING PROFESSIONAL LAND USE REVIEW AND PUBLIC INPUT
--TO VEST AUTHORITY IN ONE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
--ALLOWS ONE PERSON TO DETERMINE PERMIT APPROVAL OF PROPOSED KOHLER GOLF COURSE
-
Common Council meeting dates today Jan. 5, Jan. 19
-
Update as of January 6, 2026. Common Council ignores public input against consolidation of City Department responsibilities.
-
Approves consolidation unanimously with questions from 2 alders.
-
Moves to vote on total rewrite of Zoning Code January 19, 2026
-
Follow us for updates on actions to be taken on Facebook. Sign up for our newsletter on this website
Headlines throughout Wisconsin
·Water scarcity, aquifers drained, pesticide related diseases, groundwater poisoned, yearly increases in impaired waters, beaches closed, toxic algae preventing recreation and marine health
​
Great Lakes Region Unprepared for Increasing Water Use Demands
-
Golf Course Concerns: New Research Shows Link to Parkinson’s
The greatest risk of PD was found within 1 to 3 miles of a golf course and risk generally decreased with distance. Associations with the largest effect sizes were in water service areas with a golf course and in vulnerable ground water regions.
HOW IS THE CITY OF SHEBOYGAN, A GREAT LAKES CITY, RESPONDING TO THE FRESH WATER CRISES FROM POLLUTION AND OVER CONSUMPTION BY THE FEW??
-
BY REPLACING THE ENTIRE ZONING CODE, LIMITING THE TECHNICAL ROLE OF THE PLAN COMMISSION AND DRASTICALLY REDUCING PUBLIC INPUT BY VESTING CRITICAL LAND USE DECISIONS
IN ONE PERSON
WITH A SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE PROVISION THAT WOULD GET THE KOHLER PROPOSED GOLF COURSE OUT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
The City has neglected to fulfill FBRF's open records requests for months. The Plan Commission has ignored our requests for clarification of the defunct Kohler CUP Permit used to extend the time for a newly designed course plan.
According to City Hall, City Administrator Bradley is fully behind the Kohler project Any participation in the zoning rewrite favoring Kohler and any Kohler collaboration on the rewrite are subjects that demand transparency. One way to get past those pesky Conditional Use Permit requirements is to remove the ordinance and take the decision out of the hands of experts and the public (and a Plan Commission that might do an effective review). letters, that works well on almost every site.
The Sheboygan Common Council and Plan Commission are rushing through a total rewrite of Sheboygan’s Zoning Ordinance vesting unheard of authority in a ZONING CZAR with no explanations to the public or opportunities for public input
-
no more Plan Commission review unless the CZAR approves
-
No need for public input unless the Czar approves
-
No more environmental impact review unless Czar thinks it’s necessary
Friends of the Black River Forest Response to City Zoning Code Rewrite
January 2, 2026
VIA E-MAIL
grazia.perrella@sheboyganwi.gov
alanza.grawien@sheboyganwi.gov
City of Sheboygan Common Council
City of Sheboygan Mayor
City Hall
828 Center Avenue, Suite 103
Sheboygan, WI 53081
Re:
January 5, 2026, Common Council Meeting Agenda Items 9, 12, 13,
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment changes
Dear Common Council Members and Mayor Sorenson:
We write on behalf of the Friends of the Black River Forest to object in the strongest terms to upcoming changes to the City of Sheboygan Zoning Ordinance, ch. 105, that you will be asked to consider at meetings this month. We understand the zoning change is an agenda item for the January 5, 2026, meeting, and with the Council’s permission, a public hearing will be held and potential vote on January 19, 2026.
The zoning re-write should not be approved for at least three reasons. First, it has already bypassed needed procedural steps. Second, based on our initial review of the amended chapter, at least one provision is likely illegal and will disproportionately favor one permittee, Kohler Co. Third, the chapter rewrite makes other changes that are poor policy, like placing too much power in one individual, the City Administrator (who it also makes the Zoning Administrator).
The Friends write this letter to the Common Council now, so you can vote on January 5 to send the re-write back to the Plan Commission for further analysis and to satisfy needed procedural steps. The Common Council should wait to hold a hearing and take a vote until the Plan Commission has done so, but if it chooses to proceed on January 19, we ask that you please study the proposed changes, ask questions, and make a considered vote to reject the re-write.
Note: The agenda and public hearing notice for January 5 are also confusing and misleading. They state the Council will vote on amendments to “various sections of the Sheboygan Municipal Code so as to relocate zoning-related boards and commissions,” which we understand are in Chapter 2 and Chapter 105. Yet the public hearing notice states the hearing is “relative to the proposed amendment to the City of Sheboygan’s Zoning Ordinance,” which gives the impression that the changes being considered are only Chapter 105 and may have encompassed the general rewrite of Chapter 105. The language about relocating zoning-related boards and commissions in both the meeting and hearing notices did not clarify matters and is itself confusing. The Council may wish to consider re-noticing the hearing and delaying the vote on Agenda Item 9 due to this confusion. SeeWis. Stat. § 19.84(2), § 62.23(7)(d)2.
-
The zoning re-write has skipped needed procedural steps.
It is unclear how the request for the zoning code rewrite was initiated, but it appears it was developed by two non-lawyers at the law firm of von Briesen & Roper.[1] The Plan Commission considered the re-write at its December 9 and 23, 2025, meetings and voted to approve the re-write on December 23 with minor changes.[2]
However, the Zoning Administrator, currently Ms. Ellise Rose, needed to approve the application as complete before it could be considered by the Plan Commission or the City Council. Sheb. Ord. § 105-995(b)(2). We have seen no indication that this occurred. Even if it did, the Plan Commission needed to hold a “public meeting” to consider the application. Sheb. Ord. § 105-995(d). We infer a “public meeting” is something different than a normal, publicly-noticed meeting at which the Plan Commission must conduct all of its business under Wis. Stat. ch. 19.81, the Open Meetings law. If “public meeting” means a public hearing, no such hearing occurred before the Plan Commission.
Furthermore, we have seen no indication that the Plan Commission complied with Sheb. Ord § 105-995(d)(4), which states:
If the plan commission recommends approval of a [zoning amendment] application, it shall state in the minutes or in the subsequently issued written report to the city council, its conclusion and any finding of facts supporting its conclusion as to the following: that the potential public benefits of the proposed text amendment outweigh, or do not outweigh, any and all potential adverse impacts of the proposed text amendment, as identified in this section, after taking into consideration the proposal by the applicant.
Both the Council and the public would benefit from such findings and conclusions from the Plan Commission about such a consequential change to the City’s ordinances, but there are no findings and conclusions in the Plan Commission’s minutes, and none are included in the Common Council’s meeting packet for January 5. We conclude there are no such minutes. The Common Council should send changes to Chapter 105 back to the Plan Commission for preparation of findings and conclusions.
-
At least one provision in the code re-write is likely illegal and may disproportionally benefit Kohler Co.
At least one major proposed substantive change to the zoning ordinance would be unlawful and conflicts with statutes related to conditional use permit (“CUP”) approvals. Section 1.04(L) of the proposed amended code[3] reads:
The Zoning Administrator may amend a previous property entitlement that no longer exists or is markedly different under the current version of this ordinance (e.g., conditional uses or other special zoning approvals) if the modifications reduce the entitlement’s impact on the property or are less intense or massive than originally approved.
This is a highly atypical provision in a zoning code in our experience, and creates an illegal shortcut for certain CUP amendments, at the discretion of the zoning administrator under undefined conditions (what does it mean for impacts to be “reduce[d]” or “less intensive or massive”?), with no apparent notice or hearing requirements.
As the Council should well know, state law includes mandatory notice and hearing requirements for CUP applications. Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(de). These requirement protect, among other things, property and due process rights of neighbors and citizens. See Marris v. City of Cedarburg, 176 Wis. 2d 14, 498 N.W.2d 842 (1993) (“zoning decisions implicate important private and public interests; they significantly affect individual property ownership rights as well as community interests in the use and enjoyment of land”). Trying to evade these requirements based on the dubious notion that an applicant has modified its plans to be “less intense” than before is plainly unlawful and conflicts with the mandatory statutory language for review and approval of CUPs.
We also note this unusual provision would potentially allow Kohler Co. to evade further public review of its proposed golf course on the shores of Lake Michigan just north of Kohler-Andrae State Park. As the Common Council may or may not know, there is a debate about whether a CUP approved by the Plan Commission for Kohler Co.’s proposed golf course in 2020 is still in effect. The Friends have taken the position it is not for reasons explained to the Plan Commission in a letter in November 2025 (Attachment A, enclosed). The Plan Commission has not clarified its position at a public meeting, despite our request that it do so. If the City takes the position that the CUP is still in effect, and Kohler amends its golf course plans to make them arguably “less massive” than its prior plan, this provision could allow the Zoning Administrator (the City Administrator, under the Chapter 105 revision) to unilaterally modify the CUP and cut out the Plan Commission, neighbors, and the public.
This proposed amendment cannot become law and would undoubtedly subject the City to litigation. The Common Council should not approve it, and should inquire with the City Administrator, von Briesen & Roper, and others with knowledge about how this revision came to be.
-
The Council should make significant changes to the proposed revisions to improve the zoning ordinance.
Finally, the proposed amended Chapter 105 contains bad policy ideas. Making the City Administrator the Zoning Administrator is one of these, because it would remove zoning authority from experienced, specialized professionals and place it in the hands of a generalist city employee who has many other responsibilities. A City Administrator cannot be expected to have the same depth or breadth of zoning expertise as a dedicated professional from the city planning field. Poor choices and even legal errors are likely to follow.
Not only does the proposed amendment make the City Administrator the Zoning Administrator, but it vests significant additional authority in the new Zoning Administrator in deeply problematic ways. The Zoning Administrator is apparently authorized to decide what counts as a “less intense modification” under Section 1.04(L), as discussed above. They also have broad discretion to “assign proposed [land] uses to the appropriate category” when a proposed use is not clearly defined by the ordinances. Sheb. Ord. § 3.02(E).
The proposed amendment also collapses three different zoning categories—light industrial, heavy industrial, and factory uses—into one “industrial” category. Sheb. Ord. § 1.10 Table I-1. It is unclear what benefit this has. There is a huge range of potential land uses in those three categories and collapsing them into one invites future trouble.
We may identify additional issues with the proposed amendment as we continue to review it and compare the proposal to the current ordinance. However, we did not wish to delay in raising our objections and concerns.
We respectfully request that the Common Council return the draft ordinance to the Plan Commission for further review of the above, and reporting on its rationale for the changes to Chapter 105.
Thank you for your consideration of and attention to this letter. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
PINES BACH LLP
Christa O. Westerberg
Elizabeth M. Pierson
encl.
Cc: Liz Majerus, City Attorney (via email)
[3] See page 41 of 192 at https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/sheboygnwi-pubu/MEET-Packet-e1d3cb4ec4c5400797b865c76fb7f273.pdf
​
​
​
​
Highlighting of text added for emphasis of critical points
Lake Michigan Stewardship must be a Sheboygan priority
Friends has reminded the Common Council and the Mayor that Sheboygan's responsibilities lie far beyond city borders.
On January 19, 2026, the Council will vote on removing the permitting of the Kohler golf course with no submitted plan, from review by the Planning Department and the Plan Commission putting it in the hands of one Zoning CSAR. Friends will be challenging this highly improper action. It is anti-community and alarmingly myopic in its view of how our environment works
February 27, 2025
​
Dear Alderman_______
I am writing you today as a representative of Friends of the Black River Forest (FBRF), to update you on the most recent City Plan Commission activity regarding the proposed Kohler golf course.
FBRF’s mission is to preserve the integrity of the Kohler Andrae Lakeshore through education as to this ecosystem’s significance, and to hold State agencies, the City, and the Kohler Company to the same rule of law that applies to every citizen.
FBRF has been active since 2013, acquiring Federal, State, and City documents which have evidenced ignoring and violating regulations at City, state and Federal levels to procure for the Kohler Company the right to use its land and our state park in ways that were illegal and would contaminate and destroy our natural resources for Kohler’s private gain.
We have received awards from the Sierra Club, Fresh Water Future and the Wisconsin Society for Ornithology for our efforts to preserve and protect Lake Michigan and the coastal ecosystem of this east central shore.
We believe the public deserves to know about the Plan Commission’s and the City’s actions in allowing a developer to skirt the law which can eventually affect our common resources and our health. We also believe the public should know the developer has agreed to pay legal fees up to $200,000 incurred by any challenges to the city’s actions. This, in itself, is a choice made by this city to prevent the average citizen who is not a billionaire from having any redress against threats to their health and welfare.
The ethics of this agreement tarnished the Plan Commission’s actions and Common Council decisions on the proposed Kohler Company golf course in 2020 and continues to do so.
In 2020, the City of Sheboygan Plan Commission (PC), issued a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Kohler golf course project. Actions taken by the PC violated city procedures, ordinances and the responsible exercise of a plan commissioner’s duties.
No lawsuits by citizens ensued because the City illegally stipulated requirements for standing which precluded citizens from bringing suit. (01.Freehill letter to City)
FBRF filed a lawsuit to revoke the DNR- issued Wetland Permit for the golf course. We prevailed in this lawsuit. It was this revocation of the Wetland fill Permit which left the company unable to build the course it had presented to the DNR and to the City Plan Commission for its CUP application.
The Kohler golf course project has once again come before the City Plan Commission. On October 28, 2024, the PC received a request from a Kohler Company attorney to extend the 2020 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the golf course plan whose Wetland Fill Plan was revoked in 2019 and whose CUP had expired. Kohler submitted a letter listing changes to the old plan which were significant. ( 02. Kohler extension request letter to PC).
As you may know, the City requires every applicant for a CUP to apply for a new CUP when changes are made to the original plan. This is because a permit is site plan specific. This mandate is listed on the bottom of every CUP application.
At the November 12, 2024 meeting, the Plan Commission took up Kohler’s request and voted to extend the company’s 2020 CUP for a permit which was expired and had been revoked by the courts.
The actions of the Chair, Mayor Sorenson, the PC members and City Attorney Charles Adams, resulted in several violations of city ordinances, state law and Plan Commission ethics. (03. Westerberg letter to PC ).
Attorney Adams led some members to believe they had to vote for an extension.
Adams stated to members at the November 12, 2024 meeting:
“What I would say is this, you cannot relitigate the issues that were ligated in 2020. You are here today just simply to determine whether the extension is appropriate. In considering whether the extension is appropriate you can consider the fact that you have put these restrictions on the conditional use permit, the various restrictions that you placed there the most key of thinking they had to vote for the extension which is the requirement to have all the required permits. If you believed that that condition is no longer meetable that that would be one thing. Here the issue is for you to decide not so much to relitigate what you have already decided but whether the Kohler Company is capable of continuing with the project as you approved it and is an extension appropriate in that regard.”
Very simply put, Kohler attorneys wanted to use an expired permit issued for a particular site plan that was granted a CUP in 2020 declined to show the new site plan to the Plan Commission. A new CUP would necessitate public comment and a more scrutinized permit than the one permitted in 2020.
The newly designed course plan had been:
a. described to the Army Corps of Engineers (04. FOIA ACOE pg. 7)
b. shown to Mayor Sorenson and a few city officials at a private meeting
c. described by attorney Tomczak in the Kohler Oct. 28 request for an extension.
However, on November 12 , Attorney Tomczak stated:
“No change, no amendment in front of you today, we are not proposing anything different than what was approved in 2020 at this point.” (see Nov. 12 recording https://youtu.be/6eHYsfSXMIc?si=pVxwwC-sjJ8lOmkb
Mayor Sorenson, knowing he had seen a newly designed course months earlier, asked if a year extension were sufficient for the company and proceeded to vote for the extension all the while neglecting to mention to Ms. Tomczak that he had seen the newly designed course plan and he knew it had changed.
Later in an interview with the Wisconsin Law Review on December 16, 2024, Mayor Sorenson expressed frustration with what had gone down, in spite of having voted for the extension.
“But (Kohler) showed me the plan. This is my frustration. City officials met with Kohler and they showed us their whole new plan. They (Kohler) are trying to find some legal maneuvers to get this (golf course) approved…”
Now, in a most recent article in the Sheboygan Press on February 24, 2025, Sorenson states:
“I still have many outstanding questions about the overall potential changes in the project," Sorenson said. The Plan Commission needs to better understand the impact of clearcutting a forest right on Lake Michigan, right next to a state park. The environmental and wetland impact needs to be thoroughly examined, and we still do not know how the changes will impact the Native American burial grounds. Additionally, the city needs to better understand the longer-term impact on the infrastructure costs for this project, he continued. These are all factors we can consider in the state statutes. In the next steps, the applicant will have to be transparent about these matters."
Steadfast in his voting for a defunct and expired extension, Sorenson lists all the considerations that should have been considered in 2020. He believes these will be answered when they could only be addressed if a new CUP had been required. Mayor Sorenson believed there would be an opportunity to introduce new issues into this 2020 CUP.
Roger Miller addressed the Sustainability Task Force soon after the November PC meeting. Mr. Miller provided them with information on the many violations of the 2020 CUP and the extension vote. He requested they share this with the Common Council. However, we have the impression that the Common Council has not been provided with this information. (05. Miller Comments to Task Force).
The actions on November 12 prompted two appeals to the Sheboygan Board of Adjustment (BOA) one by Roger Miller, a citizen, and one by FBRF, joined by a Sheboygan city resident.
The appeals asked the BOA to review and invalidate the decision made by the PC on November 12, 2024. (06. Kohler CUP Appeals)
Attorney Adams next advised the BOA that it was not the proper venue for the appeal but rather the Circuit Court. This was a misreading of the state statute and also a conflict of interest of Attorney Adams. The BOA should have retained outside counsel in responding to citizens since it is a body which acts independently of the City of Sheboygan.
Roger Miller along with seven other individuals, has now brought a complaint to the Circuit Court asking that the CUP extension be declared invalid. (07. Summons and Complaint).
Today an old script is replaying with another Plan Commission that is not being led to understand its responsibility to be knowledgeable on the specifics of a development, city ordinances and the law. Conflicts of interest seem to be glossed over when it comes to Kohler. Mayor Sorenson neglected to address the conflict of interest that Mr. Belanger, a Plan Commissioner, had as an employee of the Kohler Hospitality division that manages golf course planning. As during the annexation vote, when alders employed by Kohler believed they did not have to recuse themselves because they would do the right thing, there was no understanding of recusal evident in the actions of the Chair. Usually one recuses himself not because he will act with bias, but because he wants to avoid any perception of bias to demonstrate to his constituents his concern for integrity. Mr. Belanger’s later comments indicating he was free from a conflict of interest are a conflict of interest in themselves.
Why is FBRF providing you with this information?
First, citizens deserve government officials who educate themselves as to their responsibilities and hold everyone to the law. Those who serve on committees and the Plan commission deserve to be trained so that they act based on knowledge rather than opinion. The PC did not know what it was being asked of them at the November 12 meeting.
The elephant in the room, an agreement with Kohler in which the company will pay for litigation fees up to $200,000 incurred by the city related to Kohler’s project, would appear to be tainting decisions by the Plan Commission and the City.
A Finance Committee member commented on being between a rock and a hard place between a
lawsuit from citizens over the illegal extension of the CUP and a lawsuit from Kohler Company if it didn’t get its way.
Attorney Adams responded “In my opinion, there is a little bit of a rock and a hard place
situation here but the decision that was made was the better decision and so I think it’s going to be much more defensible given that.”
Meaning it was much easier to choose to be sued by the citizens than the Kohler Company which expected the city to fall in line and had huge resources to prevail in endless court challenges.
One issue to consider when skirting and violating the law for a developer is Sheboygan’s responsibility as a city located on the second largest freshwater body within the United States.
Mayor Sorenson, Vice Chair of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative understands the activities that threaten and contaminate Lake Michigan. As Chair of the PC, when he receives a new CUP application a critical review of impacts to our health and common resources is necessary.
From the GLSLCI website: “The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative is a
multinational coalition of municipal and Indigenous government executives representing communities in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Region. Together, they are working to promote economic prosperity in their communities and protect fresh water for the benefit of current and future generations. ​The Cities Initiative and local officials integrate environmental, economic and social agendas and sustain a resource that represents approximately 20 percent of the world’s surface freshwater supply, provides drinking water for 40 million people, and is the
foundation upon which a strong regional economy is based.”
The City willingly ignores the health of this resource when it ignores impacts of development such as the mandate that site plans be included when a project changes.
As an example of what this development will entail:
It is estimated that a Wisconsin golf course uses 21,000-32,000 lbs of nitrogen fertilizer per year. (This does not include other fertilizers such as phosphorous or potassium, nor fungicides, and pesticides). An estimate of how much nitrogen alone, FBRF has kept out of our Lake and groundwater, since 2014, is 200,000 - 350,000 lbs. An estimate of the amount of water kept from being pumped out of La Michigan sent to the Kohler course as contaminated and returned to the Lake is 770,000,000 gallons.
We are proud of our efforts which have forestalled this contamination which leads to algal blooms, cyanobacteria and ultimately dead zones. However, we call on the City to do its part with critical oversight.
Kohler spokesperson and vice president of Golf, Landscape and Retail for
Kohler Hospitality, Dirk Willis, stated after the vote to extend the defunct CUP:
“Our company has an established record of environmental stewardship, and at our golf courses we use industry-leading and sustainable practices. We continue to focus on improving the quality
of life for residents and guests visiting Sheboygan County. Like the American Club, Blackwolf Run, and Whistling Straits, these types of investments elevate our community and increase the region’s tourism profile,”
Those in charge of safeguarding the public might ask:
1. Could Mr. Willis list the specific elements of environmental stewardship that have established this record?
2. Has any of their previous actions as environmental stewards involved clearcutting 170+ acres of a forest including old growth and fragmenting a state park forest?
3. Has any of them resulted in critical habitat removal which sustains an important migratory bird stopover?
4. Has any of them resulted in applying toxic chemicals such a glyphosate on a shallow sand- based aquifer along a Great Lake, threatening water quality and local drinking water?
5. In the Kohler environmental impact report there was no mention of their industry leading and sustainable practices used at their courses. In fact, in any golf course marketing materials pro-environmental practices have never been mentioned. Can they list specifically what they are?
6. Apart from the Kohler community contributions, how specifically do the American Club, Blackwolf Run, Whistling Straits elevate the region’s tourism profile? And whatever
elevation that might be, is it a fair trade for being allowed to contaminate water, our air and our land right here along the Sheboygan shoreline?
7. Kohler’s claim of economic benefits to the state and city has never been verified. Now we hear from Kohler that its world class championship course has been scaled down to a regular 18 hole course and the promises of hundreds of thousands of spectators from around the world has
evaporated. Kohler’s own economic report from 2014, claims a 19 million dollar boost to the state. Data shows Kohler Andrae State Park provides the same economic benefit to the state and with 4 other parks supports the entire state park system. Should the residents of Wisconsin accept that Sheboygan’s unverified economic benefits are more important than our state park system?
8. And from other Kohler comments about 200 jobs for the city, no one in City leadership has ever asked what the 200 jobs are that Kohler touts as a benefit to the city. Can they list them?
We hope this provides some basic information as a catalyst to ethical and informed decision making on the part of the city government. We are available to provide any documents that will help you with understanding the impacts of Kohler’s proposed golf course on the health and welfare of our citizens and our Great Lake.
Sincerely,
Mary Faydash
President, Friends of the Black River Forest
Link to the documents cited. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/s4n9yw6lglc6tsjvvsdxs/AKloF5YLiCdfYXE1YgwbFxo?rlkey=planhwxo8hl8raw69w2u47qpr&st=87f8p072&dl=0
SHEBOYGAN IS A GREAT LAKE CITY
WHEN THE CITY NEGLECTS TO PROFESSIONALLY MONITOR AND REGULATE LAND USE PROJECTS IT AFFECTS THE HEALTH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, THE HEALTH OF LAKE MICHIGAN, THE RESIDENTS OF WISCONSIN AND THE ENTIRE GREAT LAKES REGION. REDUCING PROFESSIONAL OVERSIGHT IMPACTS OUR COMMON RESOURCES OF LAND, AIR AND WATER. SHEBOYGAN DOES NOT ACT WITHIN AN INSULATED DOME.
Avenir Light is a clean and stylish font favored by designers. It's easy on the eyes and a great go-to font for titles, paragraphs & more.