Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Camping Cabins Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables proposed camping-cabin ordinance changes amid shoreland, coding and implementation questions
Summary
After public comment and committee debate, Sawyer County zoning members postponed action on draft changes to camping-cabin rules so staff can research state definitions and whether a previously cited 30% park-model cap is validly codified.
The Sawyer County Zoning Committee on its agenda discussed two draft options to revise the county's camping-cabin definition and related rules for licensed campgrounds. Public commenters and committee members raised concerns about shoreline density, whether campgrounds could convert large numbers of RV sites to permanent-style 'camping cabins,' and whether earlier county code language limiting park-model units to 30 percent of sites had ever been validly adopted. After hearing residents, campground operators and staff, the committee voted to table amendments and directed staff and county counsel to review the state regulatory definitions and the county's Municode adoption history.
What was proposed: Two draft ordinance options circulated by the zoning office would align county camping-cabin definitions more closely with State of Wisconsin language (ATCP 79) and would remove a prohibition on plumbing and heat in camping cabins. Option A proposed a 400-square-foot cap and a 14-foot height limit; Option B proposed the state-aligned 400-square-foot cap but removed any local height cap. Campground operators argued that modern visitors expect water and heat in small, cabin-style rental units and that slabs and limited utilities improve safety and accessibility. Neighbors and long-time meeting attendees warned that permitting plumbing, heat and more-permanent foundations could convert campgrounds into near-permanent mobile-home-like communities and increase impervious surface and shoreline impacts.
Committee action: Members asked staff to research two questions before the county pushes proposed language to town review: (1) how the state's ATCP / park-model definitions apply, and (2) whether Municode's present text reflects a valid county-board adoption that included a 30 percent park-model cap. Legal counsel noted significant practical consequences if the county's recodification process had inadvertently adopted language that had not been publicly ratified. The committee voted to table the proposals until staff provides written analysis and recommended implementation steps.
Ending: Staff will return with a memo that documents the prior Municode adoption action and sets out draft ordinance language with tools for tracking impervious surface, site counts and any percentage limits the committee would prefer to impose.
