Sawyer County zoning panel denies request for 32‑plot family burial site in Draper

The Sawyer County Zoning Committee on a March meeting denied a conditional use permit for a 32‑plot perpetual family burial site on land owned by Eugene Burt in the Town of Draper.

The decision follows several hours of testimony from the applicant, the town attorney and county legal counsel, and public comment. The town of Draper’s attorney, Lindsay Coles, recommended denying the application on the grounds that Burt’s proposed family burial plot does not meet the county ordinance or state cemetery law. Coles said in a written letter read into the record that the proposal “is not a cemetery nor similar to a cemetery” under the county code and, even if treated as a cemetery, would not meet requirements in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 157.

County legal counsel Rebecca (last name not specified on the record) told the committee that because the applicant requests 32 plots, “this looks a lot like a cemetery,” and recommended that, if the committee treated the site as like or similar to a cemetery, it should impose the conditions required by chapter 157. The committee first voted that the proposed site is a “like or similar use to a cemetery,” then voted to deny the conditional use permit.

Applicant Eugene Burt told the committee the family intends to provide green burials, saying the graves “would be buried like a green burial natural cemetery” and “they have to be buried at least 3 foot deep.” Burt and supporters argued the family plans to maintain the plot and that many family members live nearby and would not abandon it.

Opponents, including Linda Zilmer, secretary‑treasurer and part‑time sexton of Birchwood Cemetery, and the town of Draper’s attorney, warned of legal and public‑health obligations for cemeteries, including recording a formal plat, minimum acreage and long‑term stewardship requirements under state law. Coles and others cited Wis. Stat. ch. 157 provisions requiring record keeping, minimum licensure thresholds and, in some instances, cemetery authority structures.

Committee members debated two threshold questions: whether a 32‑plot family burial plot should be considered “like or similar” to a cemetery, and if so whether the applicant had established that the parcel and proposed governance could meet chapter 157 requirements (recorded plat, cemetery authority, financial assurances, setbacks and maintenance). The committee voted first that the use was like or similar to a cemetery and then to deny the CUP. The roll call on the final denial recorded a majority in favor of denial.

Zoning staff said county ordinances do not currently define family home burial sites as a permitted or conditional use in A‑zone districts and that approval as a CUP would trigger obligations the county would be responsible to enforce. Staff said options for the county include amending the zoning ordinance to create a specific, tiered process for home/family burials or continue to require applicants to pursue CUPs where the use is found to be like a cemetery.

The zoning administrator said staff will research how other counties regulate home or family burial sites and present potential ordinance language to the committee for future consideration.

Why it matters: The ruling leaves the Burt family without county authorization to establish the site as requested and highlights a broader policy gap: current county zoning and state cemetery statutes create different legal pathways for small, family‑scale burials versus licensed cemeteries. The committee’s decision also signals that future similar requests will be reviewed against both county ordinance and state chapter 157 requirements.