Sawyer County board denies Hayward-area rezone after town files formal disapproval

The Sawyer County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 20 denied a request to rezone a 1.25-acre parcel in the Town of Hayward from Residential-1 to Commercial-1 that the applicant said would host an equipment repair business.

The denial followed public comments from nearby residents and a Town of Hayward resolution of disapproval filed under Wisconsin Statutes, and legal counsel advised the county not to approve the rezone once the town submitted that resolution.

The rezone request, listed in the county packet as case 25-003 (owner name shown as William Ashley Straubill/Straybill in zoning documents), sought to change zoning to allow an equipment repair shop. County zoning staff reported the parcel lies along Highway 27, is 1.25 acres, and that the town’s comprehensive plan shows the site as future commercial. The Sawyer County Zoning Committee recommended approval 3–2; the Town of Hayward recommended denial 3–2 and later submitted a resolution of disapproval to the county clerk pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 59.69(5)(e)(3).

Residents who spoke at the county meeting urged denial. Scott Schultz, a neighbor who spoke during public comments, said the proposal amounted to “spot zoning” and raised air, noise and traffic concerns, saying diesel exhaust “is a carcinogen” and that trucks would create noise and access problems for adjacent properties. Schultz told the board the Town of Hayward had twice voted against the rezone and urged the county to honor the town’s decision.

The applicant, who identified himself as Will Scribe, said he intends to operate a small one-person business offering mobile and in-shop repairs and that he had engineering input and a driveway permit from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Scribe said he had submitted 16 letters of support and argued the request aligned with the town comprehensive plan’s designation for Highway 27.

County legal counsel advised supervisors that because the town filed its resolution of disapproval—albeit after the county zoning committee had acted—the statute’s legal effect is to remove the county’s jurisdiction to approve the rezone. The county’s counsel and county staff summarized the statutory procedure and recommended the board not approve the rezone.

Supervisor Buckles moved to adopt a resolution denying the rezone in accordance with the town’s disapproval; the motion was seconded and carried on voice vote.

The county’s zoning packet notes two mailed objections from adjacent property owners and additional objections heard at the public hearing. Zoning staff also noted that the nearest C-1 zoned property in the town of Hayward lies roughly 1,800 feet north of the parcel and that only limited C-1 zoning exists in the immediate area.

Under county zoning ordinance procedure the applicant may not return to the county for 12 months from the date of the public hearing; county staff referenced that provision while answering board questions.

The county action closes this phase of the rezone process; the applicant may seek other administrative or town-level avenues in the future, subject to the timelines and limits in county zoning rules.