Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures Vacant Lots topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds zoning committee: deck on vacant lot allowed under county CUP rules
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal by neighboring residents and upheld the zoning committee’s February grant of a conditional use permit allowing an accessory deck on a vacant lot, finding substantial evidence supported the committee’s decision.
The Sawyer County Zoning Board of Appeals voted to deny an appeal from neighbors challenging a conditional use permit (CUP) that allowed an 8-foot-wide deck on vacant property owned by Jacob and Sunny Bissonette. The board’s vote to deny the appeal leaves the zoning committee’s February approval in place.
Attorney Nick Sedaris, representing objectors Michael and James Hackworthy, argued the deck was not the sort of “permanent roofed structure” contemplated by Appendix D, §4.26, which the county uses to allow certain accessory structures on vacant lots only when a principal dwelling will be built within three years. Sedaris said the zoning committee had failed to make sufficient findings, had not adequately addressed whether the lot was buildable, and that the record was unclear about setbacks and an earlier variance affecting the site.
Zoning counsel Malia Malone and others told the board the ordinance’s accessory-structure definition includes decks, the applicant’s materials and staff report supplied evidence the owners would build a principal dwelling within the three-year period, and the committee reasonably relied on a prior variance and staff information in reaching its decision. Malone also cited state statutory guidance that ambiguous zoning provisions are construed in favor of private property use.
The board discussed the record and audio from the zoning committee meeting, then voted to deny the appeal. Members said the committee had jurisdiction and had substantial evidence to support its conclusions. The denial was recorded 5-0.
The record shows the Bissonettes’ lot contains a destination trailer (not a park model), a shed, and the subject deck; the zoning administrator reported a 2001 variance allowed a 22-foot setback in that location and that the current deck met required setbacks. Objectors raised questions about buildability, wetland mapping and whether the committee had access to all relevant documentation; the appeals board concluded the committee’s record and staff summary provided sufficient evidence on those points.
Per the appeals board, the decision is limited to whether the zoning committee acted within its authority and had substantial evidence; it is not a new hearing on the merits of the landowner’s plans.
The board closed the public hearing before voting and noted that, under certiorari review standards, the appeals board is limited to reviewing the committee’s record rather than conducting a de novo hearing.
