Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hotels Motels Resorts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ad hoc committee adopts state motel definition, bars new hotels/motels outside commercial zones
Summary
Members adopted the state definition of motel/hotel, agreed to treat hotels and motels as permitted only in Commercial‑1 zones going forward and amended draft ordinance language in section 6.1 to reflect that restriction; existing nonconforming motels would remain but could not expand without rezoning
The Sawyer County Zoning Ad Hoc Committee voted to adopt the state definition of motel/hotel and to prohibit the establishment of new hotels and motels outside the county’s Commercial‑1 (C‑1) zone.
Committee members accepted the state language—cited from Wis. Stat. ch. 97.01 and ATCP 72—that defines a hotel or motel as a place where sleeping accommodations are offered to transients for pay in five or more rooms. The committee agreed to use that definition to clarify ordinance language in Section 6.1 and to remove references that would otherwise imply hotels or motels could be located in rural residential (RR‑1, RR‑2) or R‑1 districts. The committee voted to prohibit all new hotels and motels in any district other than C‑1; existing hotels or motels that occupy nonconforming parcels would not be forced to change zoning, but the committee clarified that expansions or added units would not be allowed unless the property were rezoned to commercial and met density standards.
Ben Kurzweil (committee member) put the state definitions on the table during discussion and read the statutory text about the five‑room threshold. The committee also debated practical implications—parking, septic, and site size—and asked staff to revise 6.1’s dimensional example so it references C‑1 rather than RR‑1 to avoid confusing readers.
Committee members recorded concerns about nonconforming properties already in residence zones. Staff noted several locally known motels and resort parcels that sit in R‑1 or other noncommercial zones and said those properties would become legally nonconforming but could continue as existing uses; they could not expand without rezoning. The committee amended its motion to clarify the ban applies to new hotels/motels (post‑adoption) rather than retroactively forcing existing nonconforming operations to cease.
The committee also flagged related issues for future work: whether the county should adopt a formal definition for “resort,” whether resorts should remain allowed in certain rural residential districts, and how condominium ownership and short‑term rentals on condominium plats should be handled.
A staff follow‑up will replace RR‑1 references with C‑1 language in Section 6.1 and present a redline for zoning committee review.
