Sawyer County ad hoc committee narrows zoning definitions, limits new motels to commercial zones

The Sawyer County Zoning Ad Hoc Committee on (date not specified) advanced a package of clarifications and limits to the countys zoning ordinance, adopting state-aligned language for multifamily dwellings and for motels and hotels, deciding that new motels and hotels will be allowed only in Commercial (C-1) zones, and setting higher minimum lot-area requirements for additional dwelling units in rural residential districts.

Why it matters: The committees changes affect how the county regulates short-term commercial lodging, multi-unit housing and accessory units across shoreland and non-shoreland areas. Committee members said the updates are intended to reduce ambiguity in zoning text, limit unintended conversions of private residences into commercial lodging, and make conditional-use pathways clearer for larger developments such as planned unit developments (PUDs).

The committee began by addressing competing definitions that appeared in the red-line draft ordinance. After discussion, members voted to remove an older definition labelled "dwelling, multifamily" and to adopt the ad hoc committees recommended "multifamily dwelling" definition drawn from state statute language that defines multifamily as structures with three or more attached dwelling units. The committee recorded that this definition will replace references in the R-1 (Residential) district and in the PUD provisions so terminology is consistent.

Committee members debated whether terms left over from an older "multi-dwelling development" umbrella (which formerly subsumed hotels, motels, resorts and condominiums) should be removed or broken out into separate uses. Members said removing the umbrella clarifies which specific uses are allowed in which zones, but they also flagged a possible unintended consequence: if "resort" or similar uses are permitted as standalone categories, some two-unit shoreland properties or accessory dwellings could effectively be operated as short-term rental resorts unless tighter rules are added. The committee agreed to table a dedicated follow-up discussion on resort definitions and on condo rental treatment.

The ad hoc committee also moved to adopt a state definition for motel/hotel. A committee member read language from state law: "Hotel means all places where sleeping accommodations are offered for pay to transients in 5 or more rooms, and all places used in connection therewith." The committee decided to use that state definition (citing chapter 97.01 and ATCP 72 examples) and to treat the motel/hotel definition as applying to keyed units and to the threshold of five rooms or more.

On where motels and hotels are allowed, the committee voted to prohibit new hotels and motels in all districts except Commercial (C-1). Existing hotels/motels that sit in noncommercial zones will remain as legal nonconforming uses but will be unable to expand without rezoning to commercial. The committee also directed staff to revise section 6.1 (which sets dimensional and area requirements for motels) so references to rural-residential zones are removed and examples instead reference C-1.

The group adopted new dimensional guidance for additional dwelling units (ADUs) and multifamily development in non-shoreland residential districts. For Rural Residential 1 and Rural Residential 2 (RR-1 and RR-2), members approved requiring 20,000 square feet of additional lot area for each dwelling unit beyond the first (so a duplex would need the base lot minimum plus 20,000 sq ft). For the R-1 district, after discussion the committee chose a smaller increment: each additional dwelling unit in R-1 will require 10,000 square feet (up from the ordinance's prior 5,000-sq-ft increment). The committee explicitly exempted shoreland areas from new multifamily allowances, maintaining its prior recommendation that multifamily and two-family dwellings be prohibited in the Shoreland district.

Committee members repeatedly noted enforcement and nonconforming-use issues. Members and attendees raised that accessory dwelling units and long-standing, un-permitted living spaces above garages sometimes become legal nonconforming structures after long periods without enforcement, and that separating structure-based regulations (what the building is) from use-based regulations (how the owner operates and rents it) remains complex. One member cautioned that condo ownership structures and short-term rentals can create mixed scenarios where multiple owners on a single plat may each rent units, complicating zoning outcomes and enforcement.

Public comment: Linda Zilmer, a Birchwood resident and Edgewater property owner, urged better process and clearer materials for the ad hoc committee, saying: "There has not been clear guidance as to the resolution that was passed by the County Board as to what this committee was supposed to do, or the materials that you need to help make informed decisions." She recommended faster distribution of minutes and clearer handouts so committee members can prepare between meetings.

On next steps, the committee asked staff to clean up cross-references (replace removed "multi-dwelling development" language, update PUD text and section 6.1 examples, add a short-term rental definition where tourist-rooming-house language references it), and scheduled a follow-up meeting to resolve outstanding resort and condo-rental questions. Members also noted they will follow the draft through the zoning committees formal public hearing process and to county board for ratification.

"I do believe we should follow the state ordinance as close as possible," said committee member James Bassett in a discussion about selecting a single, state-derived multifamily definition, while adding that the final ordinance should aim for clarity and ease of reading.

Ending: The committee set a follow-up date (April 10) and listed resort definition, condo-rental consequences, and shoreland exceptions as agenda items for the next meeting. Staff and committee members said they will prepare revised red-line language so the zoning committee and towns can review the changes before any county-board adoption.