Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Sawyer County Board of Appeals says appellants lack standing, declines to hear zoning appeal
Loading...
Summary
After attorneys and neighboring property owners debated whether the Hallbergs had a protected legal interest, the Sawyer County Board of Appeals voted 3–2 that the Hallbergs were not "persons aggrieved" and that the board lacked jurisdiction to hear their appeal of a zoning administrator decision.
The Sawyer County Board of Appeals voted on March 24, 2026, that Aaron and Sarah Hallberg were not "persons aggrieved" and therefore the board did not have jurisdiction to hear their appeal of a zoning administrator's decision regarding a neighboring property.
The decision followed sustained argument from the Johnsons' attorney, Anders Hellquist, who told the board that the Hallbergs had not alleged a concrete injury and "They're required to provide that in the application, so you know whether you even have jurisdiction." Zoning counsel and the county zoning administrator joined that view, arguing the record did not show the sort of direct, non-speculative harm case law requires.
The Hallbergs, who said they had been notified as neighboring landowners and had considered buying the property, said the administrator's later determination changed what they believed could be done on the property and harmed their interests. Aaron Hallberg said the notice and revision history mattered: "That's our interest. That's our interest in this case." Sarah Hallberg added that the form did not ask for an injury and that "I think we are aggrieved, by the decision."
County zoning and conservation administrator Jay Kozlowski explained the procedural background that led to the appeal: his review of an earlier land use permit (land use permit no. 98-165) led him to conclude the structure at issue was previously permitted as an "other primary structure," which altered the necessary variance analysis and prompted withdrawal of an initial variance and the filing of a revised, linked variance.
After hearing attorneys and appellants, Vice Chair Laura Rusk moved that the board declare the appellants an aggrieved party so the board would have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The motion was seconded and defeated in roll call, 2 in favor and 3 against. The board therefore concluded it did not have jurisdiction to take up the merits of the appeal. Board legal counsel and county counsel warned that taking the case despite a jurisdictional defect could invite reversal on appeal; the decision letter, when signed, will start a 30-day circuit court appeal period.
Because the board dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, it did not rule on the underlying variance or land-use merits. The Hallbergs and counsel were informed they may pursue relief in circuit court within 30 days of the board's decision letter. The meeting adjourned after the vote.
(Reporting in this article is based on the board hearing transcript and on statements made on the record by attorneys Anders Hellquist and Malia Malone, zoning administrator Jay Kozlowski, and appellants Aaron and Sarah Hallberg.)
