SAWYER COUNTY, Wis. — The Sawyer County Multi‑Dwelling Development ad hoc committee on Feb. 6 voted to adopt statewide definitions for “dwelling” and “dwelling unit,” drop a standalone definition for “two‑family dwelling,” and approve a modified version of the state27s multifamily definition with a lower local height limit, while deferring a final decision on whether multi‑dwelling development should be allowed in shoreland districts.

The committee adopted the state phrases for dwelling and dwelling unit after members said using uniform statutory language would reduce local confusion. Jay (zoning administrator) summarized the approach when he told the committee, “We were gonna try to fall back on state definitions.” Linda Zilmer, a property owner, urged the committee to “use the statutory definitions for things like dwelling unit, dwelling, and multifamily dwelling.”

Why it matters: committee members said consistent, state‑based language will prevent contradictory local wording and clarify whether duplexes, accessory spaces and seasonal cabins count as additional dwelling units. The group also took separate votes on the county27s resort and multifamily language to make it clearer what kinds of rental and lodging operations will be regulated as commercial/resort uses versus residential dwellings.

Key decisions and debate

- Dwelling definitions: After extended discussion about whether a two‑family dwelling (duplex) should be defined separately, the committee voted to remove a county‑specific definition for “two‑family dwelling” and to recommend that the county adopt the state definition of dwelling (a building that contains one or two dwelling units). Committee member Benjamin Kurzweil moved to "not have a definition for a 2 family dwelling at this point" and to follow the state definition; the motion carried. Members repeatedly noted the state standard says a “dwelling” may contain one or two dwelling units, and that "common household" language helps distinguish an addition for relatives from a separate rental unit.

- Resort definition: Committee members voted to keep Sawyer County27s existing resort definition, which describes a for‑profit operation that provides rentals of dwelling units to the public and is licensed by state agencies when applicable. Jay and others recommended clarifying the wording to indicate the term applies to rental operations of more than one dwelling unit.

- Multifamily definition and height limit: The committee accepted the state27s multifamily definition (apartment building, row house, townhouse, condominium or modular home consisting of three or more attached dwelling units) but amended the height limit for Sawyer County to a maximum of 35 feet and three stories (the state language references higher numerical limits used in urban areas). The motion to adopt the state definition with the Sawyer County height amendment passed with two members recorded as opposed during the roll call on that item.

- Shoreland policy: Committee members debated whether multi‑dwelling development (apartments, townhouses, condominiums, resort complexes) should be permitted in the county27s shoreland zoning (defined on state guidance as within 300 feet of a river or stream and 1,000 feet of a lake). Several members urged limiting multifamily projects in shoreland areas to protect shoreline resources and community character; others noted that tourism and economic factors make an outright ban sensitive. The committee voted to table that question for a future meeting and asked staff to prepare options (including per‑unit frontage or area requirements) to consider at the next hearing.

Discussion highlights

- Public comment and alignment with state code: Linda Zilmer (property owner, Edgewater) asked the committee to stop "reinventing" language that conflicts with state statutes and recommended using the Wisconsin definitions and ATCP/UDC references when possible.

- Duplexes and attachments: Members raised practical enforcement questions about attached structures and "breezeways," where two formerly separate cabins joined by an enclosed connection could be treated as a single building. Staff said an enclosed, habitable connection of a certain size typically changes the regulatory status.

- Density and shoreland safeguards: Staff and members discussed per‑unit dimensional safeguards (examples cited in committee discussion included requiring additional frontage or acreage per additional unit) as tools to limit impacts if multifamily development is permitted in or near shoreland zones.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Remove county definition of “two‑family dwelling” and rely on state definition for "dwelling." Outcome: Approved (recorded as carried; vote tally not specified in the transcript). Notes: Motion intended to avoid conflicting local language and rely on state 101.61 definitions.

- Motion: Adopt state definition of "dwelling" / "dwelling unit." Outcome: Approved (vote recorded as aye; motion carries). Notes: Included state wording about "common household" to distinguish accessory sleeping space from separate dwelling units.

- Motion: Retain current Sawyer County resort definition (clarify to mean rental of more than one dwelling unit). Outcome: Approved (unanimous voice vote recorded as aye).

- Motion: Adopt state multifamily definition with local amendment (maximum 35 feet, maximum three stories). Outcome: Approved (voice vote; two members opposed recorded).

- Motion: Table shoreland vs. non‑shoreland policy for multi‑dwelling development and return with options at a subsequent meeting. Outcome: Approved (voice vote).

What the committee directed staff to do

- Prepare clearer draft language that uses state statutory definitions where feasible and flags local exceptions (primitive rural hunting cabins, uniform dwelling code differences).

- Develop options for shoreland protections or per‑unit dimensional requirements (examples discussed by members: additional frontage and land area per dwelling unit) so the committee can return to the question with concrete regulatory alternatives.

Next steps

The ad hoc committee scheduled a follow‑up meeting (the committee agreed on a late‑February date during the session) to continue unresolved items: multifamily density rules, the rooming/boarding‑house definition, regulations for accessory/habitable spaces above garages, and a clearer permitting pathway for new resort‑scale projects so towns and neighbors can review proposals.

The committee record shows sustained debate about balancing shoreline conservation and housing/tourism needs; members repeatedly asked staff to present draft ordinance text that uses the state definitions as a baseline while protecting shoreland resources.

Ending note: The committee emphasized it did not intend to ban duplexes or smaller accessory living arrangements outright but sought consistency with state standards and clearer local rules that can be enforced and explained to property owners and towns.