Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Resorts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ad hoc panel limits new resort approvals to RR2 and bars them in R1/RR1
Summary
Sawyer Countymulti-dwelling ad hoc committee voted to allow resorts only as a conditional use in the RR2 zoning district and to prohibit new resort uses in R1 and RR1, and agreed to encourage voluntary rezoning where appropriate; existing resorts become existing nonconforming uses unless they seek rezoning.
The Sawyer County Multi Dwelling Development Ad Hoc Committee voted to allow resort uses only as a conditional use in property zoned Residential-Recreational 2 (RR2) and to prohibit resort uses in the county—s R1 and RR1 zone districts.
The committee approved a motion to add resorts as a conditional use in RR2 after a motion by Ben Kurzweil and a second by Robert (Bob) Langham; the measure carried on a voice vote. Committee members later approved a separate motion to prohibit resorts in R1 and RR1; that motion also passed on a voice vote.
The committee discussed why RR2 is the appropriate district for resorts. Jay (Zoning staff) told the group that, historically, resorts were administered under a multi-dwelling-development umbrella that required three or more units; the ad hocs changes reduce that threshold so resorts can be based on more than one unit. Jay warned the group that removing the multi-dwelling umbrella and allowing resorts on fewer units opens new pathways for rental-based uses and that RR2 already includes specific lot-area and cabin provisions for resorts.
Members repeatedly cited the desire to avoid creating a large number of new nonconforming uses. Committee member James Bassett said the county could offer property owners a voluntary rezone from RR1 to RR2 where appropriate; other members said they wanted numbers on how many existing resorts sit in RR1 before finalizing the proposal.
Committee members also discussed whether to allow resort uses in commercial zones. Several members opposed adding resorts to commercial zoning because that could permit a wider range of commercial development on formerly recreational waterfront parcels. The group reached consensus to keep resorts limited to RR2.
What this means in practice: properties currently operating as resorts in R1/RR1 will generally remain "existing nonconforming" uses unless the owner discontinues the use for a period specified in the county code or voluntarily pursues rezoning. The committee noted that nonconforming resorts cannot expand unit counts without rezone or a conditional-use review that addresses density and lot-area requirements.
The committee set follow-up work for staff to (a) compile how many existing resorts currently sit in R1/RR1, and (b) draft language clarifying shoreland and non-shoreland density outcomes for resorts if those properties seek expansion or reclassification.
The ad hoc committee planned to send its red-line draft to county legal for review and reconvene if legal edits materially change the committees recommendations before formally adjournment and transmittal to the zoning committee.
ACTIONS: Motion to allow resorts as conditional use in RR2 (mover: Ben Kurzweil; second: Robert Langham). Outcome: approved (voice vote; tally not specified). Motion to prohibit resorts in R1 and RR1 (mover: not specified; second: not specified). Outcome: approved (voice vote; tally not specified).
Ending: The committee scheduled further staff work and legal review; members said they expect to reconvene if legal edits change the red-line language.
