The Sawyer County Multi Dwelling Development Ad Hoc Committee voted to allow resort uses only in the Residential Recreational-2 (RR-2) zone and later approved a separate motion to prohibit new resort uses in R-1 and RR-1 zone districts.

Committee members said the change is intended to concentrate resort activity in the zone where the county’s current ordinance already addresses cabin-resort expansion. “RR-2, that’s the only place resorts belong, really, going forward,” zoning staff member Jay Kozlowski said during the discussion.

The committee first approved a motion to permit resorts as a conditional use in RR-2 (motion by Ben Kurzweil, seconded by Robert Langham), then debated whether to allow resorts in R-1 and RR-1. After discussion about how prior regulations treated resorts only under a multi-dwelling umbrella that required three or more units, members worried the revisions could unintentionally allow resort uses where they had not been common. The committee adopted a motion to prohibit resorts in R-1 and RR-1; the motion carried by voice vote.

Jay Kozlowski told members that existing resorts in R-1 or RR-1 would become legally nonconforming under the change. As nonconforming uses, they generally may continue so long as the use is not discontinued for a defined period (the committee noted a 12-month discontinuance rule). Kozlowski said nonconforming resorts would not be able to expand unit counts without seeking rezoning or other approvals: “If you had an existing resort in RR-1 and they had enough land area per the density requirements and wanted to add an additional unit, we wouldn't allow for them to add that because they are nonconforming and expanding their use at that point.”

Members repeatedly asked county staff to quantify how many existing resorts are located in R-1 or RR-1 so the committee and county board can assess the scale of nonconformity and whether to encourage voluntary rezones. Committee members also discussed but did not adopt adding resorts to commercial zones, citing concerns that allowing resorts in C-1 could permit incompatible commercial development on lakeshore property.

The committee agreed to return to related issues — including density standards for shoreland resorts and whether condominium conversions require additional review — at a future meeting so the board can consider the downstream impacts of restricting or relocating resort allowances.

The committee recessed and scheduled further work to coordinate the draft ordinance language with county legal staff before forwarding recommendations to the zoning committee.