Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Resort Definition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee broadens 'resort' definition to include contiguous lots, not only 'same lot'
Summary
The Sawyer County committee voted to change the resort definition so units offered to the public may be on one lot or on contiguous lots under common ownership, a shift aimed at capturing closely grouped rentals while excluding irregular, distant holdings from the same definition.
The Sawyer County Planning and Zoning Committee voted to revise the county’s draft definition of “resort” to cover dwelling units offered to the public on “the same lot or on contiguous lots,” rather than limiting the definition to units strictly on a single parcel.
The change followed a lengthy discussion about how owners try to structure rentals across multiple parcels or use separate limited liability companies to avoid resort classification. Committee members said the revised language targets the common situation in which multiple cabins or dwellings sit adjacent and operate as a unified rental business.
Why it matters: The resort designation carries regulatory consequences, including conditional-use review and, in some zones, additional dimensional or permitting requirements. By adding “contiguous lots” the committee broadened the area the county can consider a single resort operation, which may subject adjacent clusters of units to permitting requirements they previously could have avoided.
Committee member Benjamin Kurtzweig moved the change, saying the draft’s phrase "on the same lot" was too narrow. The committee then voted to remove the four words and replace them with language covering contiguous lots. "If they're next to each other, they are contiguous," a committee member said during debate; the motion passed by voice vote.
Members discussed potential loopholes: owners could buy noncontiguous parcels or create multiple legal entities to operate rentals on separate lots; the committee noted those structures could still be used to evade resort classification but said the contiguous-lots language would catch many common configurations that cluster units along shorelines or roads.
The committee also asked staff to add related dimensional language to the PUD and shoreline tables so that resort or multi-unit proposals on contiguous parcels would be evaluated consistently and — where applicable — subject to the same frontage, lot-area and other dimensional expectations as single-lot resorts.
Ending: The committee directed staff to insert the revised resort wording into the next red-line ordinance draft for legal review and to add table columns or notes that clarify how resorts will be measured in PUDs and shoreland areas.
