[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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",6191703,"mediaKeyId","4444377-a976f5261273e8447ecaadd86f21b3b1","parentId",4444377,"title","Board denies variance request for house within wetland setback on Round Lake area lot","audioSeconds",1973,"startMs",11042000,"endMs",13015000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=4444377-a976f5261273e8447ecaadd86f21b3b1&start=11042&end=13015","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/4444377-a976f5261273e8447ecaadd86f21b3b1/thumbnail_11042000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6191703/Sawyer-County/Wisconsin/Board-denies-variance-request-for-house-within-wetland-setback-on-Round-Lake-area-lot","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6191703-bd8ed410dfca8c2961b820b289c0908c/orig.mp4?Expires=1776274017&Signature=TeITBXclfDU4s5TvB66gAsmYLkxCDvG6fioAwkgZB5HKxwytOwMtslgUKlRkmwPTTibo2yHMI2nbeG1EGCY9wUBNUdnCbYDHZRKvI8I~N5sxeztnyyz8Z74fFzDOPyGFZdnn3BXYVXN-~Q~IuO-iHuonP25zmczOdMGqr1uQ9z6~-jY8YmQEjX1Vf~B3WdJ0yySh9EviiKbg4P6WZ5-zbY3tFLd~C-Ke-bzddXjN3DtVyunMIHDMAaftkSTvsc68QplUrAAHNBazObp49m1NnHkh92fjJE3jsVmLFMso6RHYnReL93azKJU5SILcLETNCZO9GHXYzRW4kBAj6Xwq6A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Sawyer County, WI","date","2025-06-18T14:02:39Z","article","The Sawyer County Board of Appeals on the same agenda denied a variance request for a proposed two‑story house on a waterfront lot that would sit about 19 feet from a non‑navigable wetland, short of the county’s 40‑foot wetland setback.

Zoning staff described the proposal as a 54‑by‑42 two‑story dwelling with a tuck‑under garage; after a wetland delineation the buildable area shrank and the applicants sought a reduced setback rather than fill the wetland. The county’s shoreland/wetland ordinance requires a 40‑foot setback from non‑navigable wetland complexes; the applicants requested a variance to place the house 19 feet from the wetland boundary.

Neighbors who testified opposed the variance on environmental and practical grounds, citing loss of wetland habitat, erosion and concerns about construction equipment moving through a narrow access easement. Staff said a legally buildable area remains on the parcel without a variance (staff estimated roughly 1,900 square feet of compliant footprint), and noted the town had tabled its decision and asked the applicants to consult DNR about wetland‑fill permits if they intended to pursue other options.

The board applied the three‑part variance test: unique physical limitations of the parcel, harm to public interest if the variance is granted, and whether the applicant faces unnecessary hardship that denies reasonable use. The board found (1) the property was not sufficiently unique in a way that met the variance standard, (2) granting the variance could harm wetland resources and neighborhood character and (3) the applicant had not shown an unnecessary hardship because a buildable configuration existed. The motion to deny the variance passed 5–0.

Board members said applicants may revise plans to fit the 40‑foot setback, pursue alternate variance requests with clearer hardship showing, or seek other permitting pathways but warned that filling and grading in wetlands involves separate DNR approvals.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Zoning Board of Appeals 2025 06 17","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Appeals denied a variance request from a Hayward‑area property owner seeking to place a proposed 54×42 house 19 feet from a non‑navigable wetland (county setback standard 40 feet); vote was 5–0.","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},6191708,"Board denies appeal for private family burial plot; cites cemetery standards and public health statutes",2514,7420000,9934000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=4444377-a976f5261273e8447ecaadd86f21b3b1&start=7420&end=9934","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/4444377-a976f5261273e8447ecaadd86f21b3b1/thumbnail_7420000.jpg","/articles/6191708/Sawyer-County/Wisconsin/Board-denies-appeal-for-private-family-burial-plot-cites-cemetery-standards-and-public-health-statutes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6191708-572dac44cbf7da713b2a39dc514bb614/orig.mp4?Expires=1776274017&Signature=ofPfYqWpz~CZHSK2e~xTVeXAlZLWNxjUgJjvOL6Hl4ENFa5pak7BBaRX5hgZnYBc-bHm0qn6FHj~rplLRlsZLo8gGz96U5jOGPO34DajM-mZgpZkL~0W2uNfDSNI84wJdQZJD88eC-rjeGQX0U9mjQDsGexO8bzvlmXskYAk~3F3FbnR4wgw~YdVR~tBaVhxkrvxeEEngV31bUCZoW84kvP2KURUqNyB--FrBCuTTwSdgzB-zCwdZZaXN0f~cZaxOwHgTYICtgEjRImeAe8A4qlwJdHGJZlJLEEE~4pwS1aOYWXTzJx79E6w~gTnHgf1cqOhFmu5OFY7KIsfl0PIFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sawyer County Board of Appeals denied an appeal by Eugene and John Burt asking for a conditional‑use permit for a private family burial plot, finding that the zoning committee reasonably treated the proposal as a use like a cemetery and that the committee could require conditions similar to those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 157.

John Burt, agent for the applicant, argued the county had accepted his application and that private, family burials have long historical precedent and are not governed by chapter 157. He told the board he had “fulfilled our obligation” for the family burial plot, including a survey and plat, and that the county’s insertion of chapter 157 into the decision was a post‑hoc change to the application.

Zoning counsel Rebecca Roker and Malia Malone said the committee examined whether the proposal was a like or similar use to a cemetery under Sawyer County Code §17.5(b)(26). Because the committee found the use resembled a cemetery, it reasonably reviewed the requirements and public‑health considerations that apply to cemeteries and concluded the applicant had not shown it met those standards.

After discussion of jurisdiction, applicable law and the record from February and March committee hearings, the appeals board voted 4–1 to deny the appeal. The board emphasized its role is to review whether the zoning committee acted within its jurisdiction, applied the correct law and had substantial evidence; it concluded those tests were satisfied where the committee denied the permit.

The denial leaves the county’s zoning committee decision in place. The appellants were advised they may seek judicial review in circuit court within the statutory timeline.","The appeals board denied an appeal seeking a conditional‑use permit for a private family burial plot, concluding the proposal was ‘like or similar’ to a cemetery and that Wisconsin cemetery requirements (chapter 157) informed the committee’s analysis; motion passed 4–1.",{"_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},6191713,"Board of Appeals upholds zoning committee on deck‑on‑vacant‑lot CUP; 5–0 decision",1278,3450000,4728000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=4444377-a976f5261273e8447ecaadd86f21b3b1&start=3450&end=4728","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/4444377-a976f5261273e8447ecaadd86f21b3b1/thumbnail_3450000.jpg","/articles/6191713/Sawyer-County/Wisconsin/Board-of-Appeals-upholds-zoning-committee-on-deckonvacantlot-CUP-50-decision","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6191713-dfdcbf11eee2ddefe1cfcff25a724e99/orig.mp4?Expires=1776274017&Signature=R2h7iBUbJLqz--OqLbELLJOuOTA7r~SYTdf25Vnqraf8W9h4h-98rt3D3LA47eSne9399Wqe-p~hkY65KV0Av9fXGygGuIn7jifyCiXhmZFuv6e8sRKevQj~9ghNAdZMPo0kRVDp4SAlAkv3mS4yPHGLkwIYj56gwzPlf68Ideq4HyVGh1rjiHWH7ZcfI~ItmGBVbIMXnuJzWXhuUvzJWWTaSzXiMmjrPLmngQmPvMfQ6Q7FA-ENvqhrU3A0-SLdauOEww6ykTF2qd0FLzDhJv2Mgf5FiLTSpVi6qzS-fWGCd0pJMGLXPxs6FtxPEqaMinWB5TMm~fuwV0NM9EqsDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sawyer County Board of Appeals voted 5–0 to deny an appeal against a conditional‑use permit that allowed a deck on vacant property in the Town of Ojibwe, ending the challengers’ effort to overturn the zoning committee’s February approval.

Attorney Nick Sedaris, representing appellants Michael and James Hackworthy, argued the deck does not qualify under Sawyer County Code Appendix D §4.26 — which addresses accessory structures on vacant property — because the ordinance targets “permanent roofed structures” and the deck is not roofed. Sedaris also argued the zoning committee’s written findings did not demonstrate the board considered whether the property was buildable or whether the principal dwelling would be constructed within three years as the ordinance requires.

Zoning counsel Malia Malone and others told the appeals board the county code defines accessory structures to include decks and that Section 4.26’s initial sentence about roofed structures does not render other text meaningless. Malone also cited Wisconsin statute 895.463, which instructs courts to resolve zoning ambiguities in favor of the free use of private property. Zoning staff said the record included evidence the lot was buildable, that a past variance applied to the parcel and that the applicants had represented they will build a principal dwelling within three years.

After closing public comment, the appeals board discussed whether the committee had jurisdiction, whether it applied the correct legal standard and whether substantial evidence supported the committee’s approval. The board concluded the zoning committee had acted within jurisdiction, had not proceeded on an incorrect theory of law and had substantial evidence supporting its decision. The motion to deny the appeal passed 5–0.

The decision leaves the conditional‑use permit in place; the appellants’ legal options include a circuit‑court appeal. Board members urged clearer, more specific written findings in future zoning committee decisions to reduce similar appeals.","The Sawyer County Board of Appeals declined an appeal of a conditional‑use permit that allowed an accessory deck on vacant land, finding the zoning committee had adequate record and evidence; the appeal argued section 4.26 only covers permanent roofed structures and that the committee failed to make adequate findings.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6191718,"Appeal over 150-foot buffer at Hunter campground sent back to zoning committee",258,395000,653000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=4444377-a976f5261273e8447ecaadd86f21b3b1&start=395&end=653","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/4444377-a976f5261273e8447ecaadd86f21b3b1/thumbnail_395000.jpg","/articles/6191718/Sawyer-County/Wisconsin/Appeal-over-150-foot-buffer-at-Hunter-campground-sent-back-to-zoning-committee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6191718-bd7ada60408807d323b972b10bdf8b56/orig.mp4?Expires=1776274017&Signature=UUxjsvYA9CjT8e-HpIQ~IpjEXHb9anbhSH8PBdaEkrmSe8hCKqwNajS~mdsh9IRKUnIYqKlQao3lJ6z3Mt3T3QxljigfDlF9nujOIB7yHVUYfQr-bYuTQrLNlS0cNENKzLRtI-eUJ1sZx0uNtKE56Uj253oXA5mebQgr1WsyflO0mYQYHOKxF5ZTkq~9P-SQoaUBdNKfTQB0aIvYrKCPJh6hek66GUJgAW8bpjRnhRZY5Idytqz-KgQk3SU27x~eQ2TvvX~MkVvleEoqfJR-LLdFMTeTa-ljRVigxmhAivkhcWwakrHoeFj3ZQ2wFxlaL9oRyXjk6EMwQAAoLHjDuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sawyer County Zoning Board of Appeals on an evening meeting returned an appeal about a campground permit condition to the county zoning committee for clarification after residents and the permit holder disputed a change that reduced a 150‑foot buffer to a requirement for a row of trees.

Attorney Max Lindsey, representing appellant Darlene Smolin, told the board the zoning administrator had “taken actions to change that unilaterally without any notice, any procedure, any hearings, any opportunity for input,” and argued the administrator lacked authority to alter condition 11 of conditional use permit 21‑013.

The appeal centers on whether the original conditional‑use decision required a 150‑foot buffer between campground sites and neighboring property, or instead left a 100‑foot residential strip plus a 50‑foot setback where the operator agreed to plant a single row of pines. Zoning administrator Jay Kozlowski said he had listened to audio of the 2021 hearings and concluded the record supported inserting a row of pines to reflect the committee’s intent; he characterized the change as correcting a “Scribner’s error.”

Several neighbors described planting failures and concerns about whether one row of 6–8 foot pines would constitute the protective “buffer” they understood the committee to require. Owner Steven (Steve) Boden Schatz told the board he had planted screening and said the planted trees were located along the 50‑foot setback, not the 100‑foot RR‑1 strip.

After more than an hour of testimony, a member moved to send the appeal back to the zoning committee to “clarify what they meant by number 11.” The motion passed 4–0. The board also confirmed the administrative stay tied to the appealed condition remains in place for the campground side of the 150‑foot measurement: the stay prevents construction activity inside the campground area up to the 150‑foot line pending the zoning committee’s clarification.

The board instructed the zoning committee to review the record (audio, minutes and decision letter) and issue a specific clarification of condition 11. The remand preserves procedural options for all parties: if the zoning committee alters the condition again, future appeals or enforcement actions may follow.

Board members and the zoning office said the remit is narrow: the appeals body must decide whether the zoning administrator properly changed the written condition or whether the committee itself should clarify its original intent. The zoning committee will have to reissue a decision with clearer findings if it seeks to change the condition again.","Sawyer County Board of Appeals voted unanimously to return an appeal over a conditional‑use permit condition that reduced a 150‑foot buffer to a row of pines. The board directed the zoning committee to clarify what it intended for “condition 11.”","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board denies variance request for house within wetland setback on Round Lake area lot

Board denies appeal for private family burial plot; cites cemetery standards and public health statutes

Board of Appeals upholds zoning committee on deck‑on‑vacant‑lot CUP; 5–0 decision

Appeal over 150-foot buffer at Hunter campground sent back to zoning committee