Committee bars multi-dwelling development on shoreland, votes to remove 'multi dwelling development' term from ordinance

The Sawyer County Multi-Dwelling Development Committee voted to prohibit multi-dwelling development in the county's shoreland district and directed staff to remove the separate phrasing "multi dwelling development" from the zoning ordinance. Committee members also agreed to defer a detailed density policy discussion to a future meeting.

The committee acted after extended debate on how the county should treat duplexes, condominiums, resorts and other multi-unit uses in areas adjacent to lakes and rivers. The committee's motion to bar multi-dwelling development in the shoreland district — including duplexes, as stated in the motion — passed by voice vote; committee chair Dale Olson confirmed the motion carried. Later the committee voted to remove the term "multi dwelling development" where it appears in the ordinance and to replace it with more specific provisions at a later date.

Members cited the county's shoreland protections and concerns about nonconformities. Committee member James Bassett said shoreland lots "should only have single family unit dwelling," arguing that multiple dwellings next to water would harm the lakeshore resource. Others, including zoning staff and committee members, warned that wholesale changes could create large numbers of nonconforming properties and that existing resorts, condominiums and other preexisting multi-unit properties may be affected.

The committee debated where to allow multi-unit development outside shoreland and whether to require applicants to meet larger lot-size or frontage thresholds. One proposal discussed in the meeting would have doubled minimum frontage and lot area requirements for each additional dwelling unit on a lot; committee members calculated that doubling typical lake-lot minimums (100-foot frontage and 200-foot depth) would create an effective minimum of roughly 1.83 acres (about 80,000 sq. ft.) for a two-dwelling scenario. The group ultimately tabled the density discussion to allow staff and members more time to draft precise language.

Committee members also discussed planned unit developments (PUDs) as a possible avenue to allow larger multi-unit projects through rezone processes that include public notice and town review. Zoning staff said PUD provisions exist in the county ordinance and will be placed on the next meeting's agenda so the committee can consider whether PUD procedures should be the principal path for large multi-unit projects.

The committee's actions will require staff to draft updated ordinance language documenting the shoreland prohibition and removing the MDD term; staff told the committee it will prepare red-line edits for review at the next meeting.