[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6201364,"mediaKeyId","3794563-dc4ef568b9bebe5c3ee4aaf45685bd03","parentId",3794563,"title","Committee removes multifamily from some zones, sets draft shoreland density rule requiring doubled lot area/width per extra unit","audioSeconds",2726,"startMs",4866000,"endMs",7592000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3794563-dc4ef568b9bebe5c3ee4aaf45685bd03&start=4866&end=7592","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3794563-dc4ef568b9bebe5c3ee4aaf45685bd03/thumbnail_4866000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6201364/Sawyer-County/Wisconsin/Committee-removes-multifamily-from-some-zones-sets-draft-shoreland-density-rule-requiring-doubled-lot-areawidth-per-extra-unit","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6201364-6d896862e3393efb5e80cf26625f59e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771042788&Signature=aLcwr27nXIutnGj3-IANseszsRF0vJZswQhfaw5mmFWfCfa4k-hEGyRCtVJCxU05QrAS2vX7OubkxaEkjWz3eqgD7tzesZuzmKbDYtYwPKGPkNNfk~2x0af1Al4yxwwbVnKHVF98zxKNBFTcZVUh-S91Fu47ixtZT00DOfrPOQbAve3L-9ez0Gc0semSjXBoRdHf8HmnSAGhnma61Z7YL2mszD~6BXqCyqLI6FoqkFTC1boDS3lnX3yWx3ToziJNwSveGU9bx7cvddRBj1YGQzvpMi0IVPSADzXAl1ZeXHAkWTPmEdUqSyBuwyWukBLzQwqqbGPziF5-TuXw2N7mtg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Sawyer County, WI","date","2025-06-13T06:04:16Z","article","The Sawyer County Planning and Zoning Committee voted to remove multifamily dwelling as a conditional use from the RR1 and RR2 residential-recreational zone districts and to direct staff to add shoreline density language requiring that each additional dwelling unit meet doubled minimum lot area and lot width in shoreland areas.

The committee's action on multifamily came after members said the prior red-line draft had included multifamily permissiveness in RR1 and RR2 without the committee’s explicit approval. A motion to remove multifamily dwelling from RR1 and RR2 carried by voice vote.

Why it matters: Multifamily and two-family dwellings in shoreland areas raise concerns about lake impacts, septic capacity and shoreline crowding. The committee’s instruction to double lot-area and lot-width requirements for additional dwelling units is intended to limit density and protect shoreline water quality by increasing the land area required to add rental units or convert properties to multi-unit uses.

Discussion at the meeting covered multiple scenarios: existing condominium plats that already contain multiple units, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and cases where property owners might try to avoid resort or multifamily classification by placing units in separate LLCs or on noncontiguous parcels. Committee members and staff wrestled with enforcement and legal boundaries, especially where existing structures and condo maps complicate simple reclassification.

Committee direction and votes:
- Members voted to remove \"multifamily dwelling\" as a conditional use from RR1 and RR2 (motion approved by voice vote).
- The committee also adopted a motion directing that shoreland density requirements be written so that the minimum lot area and the minimum lot width are doubled for each additional dwelling unit; staff also received direction to require that any new resort proposals meet those shoreland intensive requirements. That motion was approved by voice vote; the committee asked staff to insert the requirements into the red-line draft and the shoreland tables for legal review.

Committee members stressed enforcement limits: existing condos and nonconforming structures would create complicated implementation paths, and several members said legal review will determine whether the county can recharacterize existing uses or only apply the new standards prospectively to new proposals and new resort classifications.

Ending: The committee sent the red-line edits to staff for version 6, asked legal for a focused review of the multifamily/duplex prohibition and of the doubled shoreland density approach, and scheduled follow-up once the county attorney has reviewed the draft.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Multi Dwelling Ad Hoc 2025 06 12","oneSentenceSummary","The Sawyer County Planning and Zoning Committee voted to remove multifamily dwelling from conditional-use permissions in RR1 and RR2 zones and adopted a policy direction that shoreland proposals and new resorts must meet doubled lot-area and lot-width requirements for each additional dwelling unit, pending legal review and red-line drafting.","taxTitle","Sawyer County, Wisconsin","taxId",73055,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6201369,"Committee broadens 'resort' definition to include contiguous lots, not only 'same lot'",437,3310000,3747000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3794563-dc4ef568b9bebe5c3ee4aaf45685bd03&start=3310&end=3747","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3794563-dc4ef568b9bebe5c3ee4aaf45685bd03/thumbnail_3310000.jpg","/articles/6201369/Sawyer-County/Wisconsin/Committee-broadens-resort-definition-to-include-contiguous-lots-not-only-same-lot","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6201369-f94549fbcb02eb63e0cf81518ebe0de4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771042788&Signature=oOchQpU7UeepjbYftFYVUJOXqtnS~hlX99bP-wAz9h~Bz32-LSMS~P0OTsr-jJsXv3X43ZNUMFnouC-1AXpUaxbcdQa57Oc8BWJXi3c4wywMifRR21qu1x831keI4eYCUAgNtgG~HilI8sx2rC3tVcj~LThYayGjsx--bxegYRZQoM70yyl1JApxDvDVIgJNUj7R917iFk30DZLHRDhM6sNSuTYoR-gXNvbfkt546PH3w482lDLhp3Ai9cRoMS7~kBeBOKmVsdotCjAaHA5sa0O~gckINu-dwhQjNGY4qiXREB60GrP3IeKEmpq-eo4W~8E78N0gtDDzoyX-RjJQjg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sawyer County Planning and Zoning Committee voted to revise the county’s draft definition of “resort” to cover dwelling units offered to the public on “the same lot or on contiguous lots,” rather than limiting the definition to units strictly on a single parcel.

The change followed a lengthy discussion about how owners try to structure rentals across multiple parcels or use separate limited liability companies to avoid resort classification. Committee members said the revised language targets the common situation in which multiple cabins or dwellings sit adjacent and operate as a unified rental business.

Why it matters: The resort designation carries regulatory consequences, including conditional-use review and, in some zones, additional dimensional or permitting requirements. By adding “contiguous lots” the committee broadened the area the county can consider a single resort operation, which may subject adjacent clusters of units to permitting requirements they previously could have avoided.

Committee member Benjamin Kurtzweig moved the change, saying the draft’s phrase \"on the same lot\" was too narrow. The committee then voted to remove the four words and replace them with language covering contiguous lots. \"If they're next to each other, they are contiguous,\" a committee member said during debate; the motion passed by voice vote.

Members discussed potential loopholes: owners could buy noncontiguous parcels or create multiple legal entities to operate rentals on separate lots; the committee noted those structures could still be used to evade resort classification but said the contiguous-lots language would catch many common configurations that cluster units along shorelines or roads.

The committee also asked staff to add related dimensional language to the PUD and shoreline tables so that resort or multi-unit proposals on contiguous parcels would be evaluated consistently and — where applicable — subject to the same frontage, lot-area and other dimensional expectations as single-lot resorts.

Ending: The committee directed staff to insert the revised resort wording into the next red-line ordinance draft for legal review and to add table columns or notes that clarify how resorts will be measured in PUDs and shoreland areas.","The Sawyer County committee voted to change the resort definition so units offered to the public may be on one lot or on contiguous lots under common ownership, a shift aimed at capturing closely grouped rentals while excluding irregular, distant holdings from the same definition.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6201374,"Sawyer County committee reopens definition of 'dwelling,' debates camping cabins and hunting-cabin exclusion",1038,117000,1155000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3794563-dc4ef568b9bebe5c3ee4aaf45685bd03&start=117&end=1155","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3794563-dc4ef568b9bebe5c3ee4aaf45685bd03/thumbnail_117000.jpg","/articles/6201374/Sawyer-County/Wisconsin/Sawyer-County-committee-reopens-definition-of-dwelling-debates-camping-cabins-and-hunting-cabin-exclusion","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6201374-15631fcb2c5ec2a260008fe7fa30399e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771042788&Signature=QNdk8WtmiGFVP2RwQQs2CPrrFPwMnEBr63833TpJSB9HJucjhs3f7adhf7LM2mPYz-9u98pS85AAH0EZyqmllpewW5GHnSfgWlN7zlsoHtbSAa-us05Vwv-ANv-KVToAKQ90JajJQGDqPmqwKxAPxvv5Q9orCU10Xm4zxYoLecJITLEAxhvKijti9lE8xM4yQeWfKqvqCRpg3sNgeL99HMIRTSPLugtj52Pv46OdaM9dSuRVA8wlRVid8GsBNshKoCbqay5uaQFzuBL9YeDRtU7c4CaRXzzUNjy0uj4vzkaIk1ItNVE8sSDwVrmyEVmZaKUeLH9sfTNjbOkPsefsmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a Sawyer County Planning and Zoning Committee meeting, members debated whether new camping cabins should be treated the same as residential dwellings and voted to remove a clause that excluded “primitive rural hunting cabins” from the county’s definition of dwelling.

The change came after public comment and several committee exchanges about how camping cabins — small, often-seasonal structures with utilities — affect shoreland density, wastewater expectations and building inspections. The committee approved the change to the dwelling definition by voice vote; the motion carried.

Why it matters: The county’s definition of “dwelling” determines which structures must meet the Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC) inspections, the minimum lot and shoreline dimensional standards, and wastewater design assumptions that underpin septic sizing. If camping cabins or hunting cabins are treated as dwellings, they may be subject to inspection and the same lot-area or frontage calculations the county applies to year-round homes.

Public commenters and several committee members pressed the group to reconcile state and local language. \"I would ask that you give the same consideration of density on shorelines in size of the months, a 100 foot 100 foot width as well as occupancy, density when you're looking at the cabin definition as you would. The same the same guidelines for residential as well as the camping cabins,\" said Dana Cola, president of the SurveyPoint Lakes Forum, during public comment.

Committee discussion centered on the existing ordinance distinction between \"camping units\" and dwellings. \"Due to the way that camping cabins are structured in the ordinance ... they're not gonna be classified as dwellings,\" said Committee member Benjamin Kurtzweig during the meeting, summarizing the current interpretation. County staff and other committee members noted that the distinction has consequences: primitive rural hunting cabins historically were excluded from UDC inspection requirements, while camping cabins with utilities increasingly look like tiny homes and may require UDC review.

Resident Lynn Zomer said the state is considering shoreland-related changes and urged clarity: \"The state needs to do something so that the counties are protected,\" she said, referencing recent state-level conservation surveys that called for updated shoreland guidance on camping units and wastewater flow rates.

The committee discussed practical elements that follow from changing the definition: whether hunting cabins should be required to meet minimum lot or plumbing standards, how wastewater design flow assumptions for camping units (noted in the meeting as 30 gallons per day under current guidance, compared by one commenter to 100 gpd used in some states) should change, and how changing the dwelling definition interacts with shoreland density rules the committee is concurrently revising.

What the committee decided: Members voted to remove the sentence that explicitly excluded primitive rural hunting cabins from the county’s dwelling/dwelling-unit definition. The removal means the county’s local definition will no longer carry that particular exclusion; the practical regulatory effect will depend on how the county’s code and implementation guidance treat such structures (for example, UDC inspection triggers and septic design). The motion carried by voice vote; a roll-call tally was not recorded in the public transcript.

Next steps and limits: Committee members asked staff to fold the change into the next red-line draft for legal review and to clarify which structures will trigger UDC inspections and septic sizing. They did not adopt specific new wastewater rates or inspection protocols at this meeting. Linda (staff) and Jay (staff member) said they will incorporate the committee’s guidance into version 6 of the draft ordinance for further review.

Ending: The committee’s edit narrows a previously explicit exclusion and raises practical questions the county intends to resolve in its next draft and through legal review. Further changes to shoreland density and wastewater rules were discussed separately during the meeting and may affect how the revised definition is enforced.","At a Sawyer County Planning and Zoning Committee meeting, members discussed whether camping cabins should be treated like dwellings and voted to remove language excluding primitive rural hunting cabins from the local definition of \"dwelling,\" prompting questions about inspections, shoreland density and wastewater calculations.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee removes multifamily from some zones, sets draft shoreland density rule requiring doubled lot area/width per extra unit

Committee broadens 'resort' definition to include contiguous lots, not only 'same lot'

Sawyer County committee reopens definition of 'dwelling,' debates camping cabins and hunting-cabin exclusion