Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the CUP 26 017 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sawyer County tables two‑unit resort permit after legal counsel flags definition conflicts
Summary
The committee postponed action on CUP 26‑017 for David and Rachel Tocek, citing multiple definitional ambiguities in county code and prior court actions; legal counsel recommended a closed‑session briefing before the Aug. 21 meeting.
The Sawyer County Zoning Committee on June 10 tabled Conditional‑Use Permit 26‑017, the Toceks’ request to rent two cabins as short‑term rentals, after legal counsel told the committee the county ordinance contains multiple ambiguities that could invite litigation.
Zoning Administrator Jay Kozlowski reviewed the application history and the effect of a prior circuit‑court default judgment, saying that earlier committee discussions and a BOA (Board of Appeals) decision had left unresolved questions about whether renting two units on a single lot constitutes a "resort" under the ordinance. The staff report traced prior interpretations and noted the default judgment’s unintended consequences.
Applicants David and Rachel Tocek told the committee the property has been in the family for decades and that they had historically rented both cabins without incident; David Tocek said, "I think Jay did a pretty good job of reading through his summary. One correction, this property has been in the family, since 1979." The applicants argued their two small cabins should not be treated as a resort.
Multiple residents and ad hoc committee members urged the zoning committee to respect the current ordinance text. Douglas Kurtzweil, who has previously litigated related cases, said the ordinance definition of "multidwelling development" is clear and restricts multi‑dwelling to "3 or more dwelling units," making the CUP application inconsistent with the current ordinance language.
Rebecca, county legal counsel, told the committee she had practiced for more than 23 years and described the ordinance language as among the most poorly drafted she had encountered; she cited numerous ambiguities (definitions of "resort," "multidwelling development," and "dwelling unit"), nonconformity issues and procedural matters arising from the prior court action. She advised that some issues should be addressed in a closed session because they are subject to attorney‑client privilege and involve potential litigation.
After discussion, the chair moved to table CUP 26‑017 until the Aug. 21 zoning committee meeting and to hold a closed‑session legal briefing beforehand. The motion carried. Legal counsel and the zoning administrator will prepare materials for the closed session and return the item to the committee on Aug. 21.
This decision preserves the committee’s procedural options and reflects counsel’s advice to resolve definitional and procedural uncertainties before rendering a decision that could prompt further litigation.
