An ad hoc Sawyer County committee convened to address multi‑dwelling development concluded its first meeting with several clear tasks: fix conflicting ordinance definitions, decide whether shoreland property should be treated differently, and draft density standards for multiple units on a single lot.

The committee also elected a chair and vice chair and named a recording secretary. Members set a follow-up meeting for Feb. 6 at 2 p.m.

Why it matters: County zoning language currently permits “multi dwelling development” by conditional use in several zones but, elsewhere in the definitions section, states that “only 1 dwelling unit is allowed per lot.” That contradiction leaves owners, town governments and county staff without clear guidance on whether duplexes, condominiums, resorts, motels, or small apartment complexes can be created or expanded under current rules, committee members and staff said.

Jay Kozlowski, Sawyer County zoning administrator, opened the discussion by pointing to the core conflict in the ordinance. Kozlowski said the ordinance’s definition of dwelling unit and of a lot reads in part that a lot is “capable of being occupied by 1 building or 1 dwelling unit,” while a separate definition of multi‑dwelling development refers to “3 or more dwelling units … located on the same lot.” Kozlowski said that mismatch “prohibits myself from properly administrating the code” unless the committee clarifies the language.

Linda Zilmer, a Village of Birchwood resident who spoke during the meeting’s public comment period, urged the committee to improve coordination with town governments and to include opportunities for public comment earlier in future agendas. Zilmer said “previous attempts at zoning ordinance amendments have been very closed processes, and… things have not been really vetted before they’ve gone out to the towns.”

Committee members and staff outlined several specific issues they will study:
- Definitions: Several speakers recommended clarifying terms including “dwelling,” “dwelling unit,” “two‑family dwelling” (duplex), “resort,” and “multi‑family” or “multi‑dwelling development.” Benjamin Kurzweil, chairman of the town of Hayward, recommended removing the phrase “multi dwelling development” entirely because other categories (hotel, motel, resort) already exist in the ordinance. Kurzweil said, “My recommendation is that we delete or expunge that term multi dwelling development from the ordinance completely.”
- Shoreland vs. non‑shoreland: Multiple members said shoreland (the county’s 1,000‑foot lake / 300‑foot river/stream buffer zone) merits special treatment. Laura Rusk, chair of the Town of Hunter, described a recent shoreland example where property owners sought to reoperate a former resort and later proposed replacing two cabins with a duplex and to rent one side; members said the committee should recommend whether higher‑density uses should be allowed in shoreland areas.
- Density and lot buildability: Kozlowski and others stressed the need for explicit density rules (land area required per dwelling unit). The current ordinance’s minimum lot standard (20,000 square feet and, in one zone, an additional 5,000 square feet per additional unit) is inconsistently applied; the committee will consider whether additional units should require substantially more land (examples discussed included doubling required area for a second unit). Town representatives also raised that minimum lot area should be calculated from the buildable portion of the lot (excluding wetlands), not total acreage.
- Existing nonconforming properties and short‑term rental rules: Staff noted the county has many lawfully placed, older properties with more than one structure on a single lot (staff estimated “well over 1,000”). The county’s new TRH (tourist rooming house) licensing ordinance allows rental of one dwelling unit per lot; the committee must decide how to treat older, legally nonconforming parcels with multiple dwellings and how accessory units and conversions (for example, an apartment over a garage) should be handled under TRH and other rules.
- Financing and technical constraints: Several members flagged practical constraints, including septic/well sharing and mortgage/finance limits that make certain multi‑unit site arrangements infeasible unless the property is structured as a condominium. Steve Bining, Town of Draper supervisor, said lenders typically will not finance individual sales of units that share well and septic the way a condominium would, which affects what zoning should reasonably allow.

Committee members discussed regulatory options, including:
- Creating a new zoning district for multi‑dwelling properties, with standards tailored to those uses; or
- Allowing multi‑dwelling uses only through conditional use permits or planned unit development (PUD) / cluster development processes already in the subdivision ordinance; or
- Retaining multi‑dwelling uses in current zones but tightening definitions and adding explicit density/buildable area standards.

What the committee decided at the meeting: The members asked staff to draft options and background materials for the next meeting. Specific follow‑up items included: research on statutory definitions, examples of zoning language from other counties, the implications of deleting the phrase “multi dwelling development,” potential density calculations for additional units, and a review of how the TRH license interacts with multiple dwellings on a lot. Kozlowski and staff agreed to prepare materials for the next meeting.

Elections and administrative actions: Members elected Dale Olson as chair and Benjamin Kurzweil as vice chair by voice vote (unanimous consent), and appointed Kathy Marks as recording secretary. The committee scheduled a follow‑up meeting for Feb. 6 at 2 p.m.

The committee left open fundamental policy questions — particularly whether to allow multiple dwellings in shoreland zones and how to treat older nonconforming parcels — and directed staff to provide legal and administrative options at the next meeting.

Votes at a glance: Chair: Dale Olson — appointed by unanimous voice consent (nominations opened and closed by voice vote). Vice chair: Benjamin Kurzweil — appointed by unanimous voice consent. Recording secretary: Kathy Marks — appointed by unanimous voice consent.

What’s next: Staff will prepare draft options and statutory references for the committee’s next meeting, where members said they prefer to focus on definitions, shoreland distinctions and explicit density/buildable‑area requirements.

Ending: The committee’s work will shape how Sawyer County interprets competing ordinance provisions and how towns and property owners can propose duplexes, resorts, condominiums, or other multi‑unit arrangements. The next meeting is set for Feb. 6, 2 p.m.; committee members said they prefer a relatively short, focused agenda and faster meeting cadence to resolve the core conflicts.