Sawyer County ad hoc committee adopts state multifamily definition, sets new lot-size rules

The Sawyer County Zoning Ad Hoc Committee voted to replace a local, duplicate definition of “dwelling, multifamily” with a state‑based “multifamily dwelling” definition and approved new minimum lot‑area rules for additional dwelling units in county residential districts.

The committee approved using the ad hoc draft definition the group developed—based on Wisconsin statute language—that defines a multifamily dwelling as consisting of three or more attached dwelling units. The motion removed the older “dwelling, multifamily” entry and directed staff to use the multifamily‑dwelling definition where the ordinance references multifamily uses.

The change matters because it clarifies when a building is classified as a multifamily dwelling (three or more units) versus a dwelling (one or two units), and because the committee tied that definition to new dimensional requirements. The committee approved requiring rural residential (RR‑1 and RR‑2) parcels to provide 20,000 square feet of lot area for each additional dwelling unit beyond one (for example, a duplex would require two times the minimum). For the Residential‑1 (R‑1) district, members agreed to a smaller increase: 10,000 square feet per additional dwelling unit instead of the ordinance’s prior 5,000 figure.

Jay (staff member, zoning) explained the practical link between the definitions and zone‑district uses: the R‑1 district currently lists “multifamily” as a conditional use in some places and the proposed change replaces that label with the newly adopted ‘‘multifamily dwelling’’ term for consistency. He noted the planned‑unit development (PUD) language should also be updated so the PUD references the same term in its development plan standards.

Committee discussion emphasized consistency with state definitions and readability. "I do believe we should follow the state ordinance as close as possible," James Bassett, a committee member, said during debate. Members debated whether to preserve the former umbrella term “multi dwelling development” (which historically collected hotels, motels, resorts and condos) or to eliminate the umbrella and assign those uses individually under appropriate zones; the committee favored removing the umbrella and specifying uses by district.

The committee also confirmed its earlier recommendation to prohibit multifamily and two‑family dwellings in the county Shoreland ordinance and noted staff inserted the newly adopted definitions into the Shoreland language. Public commenter Linda Zilmer, a resident of the village of Birchwood, urged caution on creating widespread nonconformities and suggested town officials and the committee re‑review shoreland changes before final action.

The committee left several items for follow‑up: cleaning cross‑references in the PUD and commercial sections, checking whether any existing nonconforming properties would be affected, and further discussion of resorts and condominium rental rules. Members set a future meeting and agreed committee recommendations will go to the full Zoning Committee and then to the County Board for ratification.

Votes at the meeting included voice votes for the key motions described above; where individual opposition was recorded in the transcript it was noted in committee debate and will appear in the official minutes.

The committee scheduled continued consideration of resorts, condominium rental questions and final cleanup for a subsequent meeting on April 10.