Two‑unit 'resort' short‑term rental request tabled after legal counsel flags ordinance ambiguity
June 19, 2026 | Sawyer County, Wisconsin
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Sawyer County Zoning Committee tabled a contentious conditional use permit application (CUP 26‑017) that would allow the owners to rent two cabins on one lot, after county legal counsel described the zoning ordinance as ambiguous and advised a deeper legal review.
Applicant David Tozac and supporters argued the two cabins are modest and historically rented and asked the committee not to treat the property as a resort. Tozac told the committee the property had been in the family for decades and that rentals were week‑long bookings to reduce traffic. "We do not consider these two little cabins a resort," he said.
Opponents and several town officials argued the county’s ordinance language is clear on multi‑dwelling development and that the application does not fit the criteria for a conditional use. Public commenters raised septic and public‑safety concerns tied to shoreland standards and said prior court decisions complicate any administrative approval.
County legal counsel told the committee that multiple definitions in the zoning ordinance ("resort," "dwelling unit," and "multi‑dwelling development") contain conflicting language and that a 2019 administrative history and a later default judgment have produced inconsistent regulatory paths. She said the matter raises procedural and legal exposure that would be appropriate for a closed attorney‑client briefing before the committee acts.
Given the complexity, the committee voted to table the application until the August 21 meeting and requested a closed‑session legal briefing and further work on ordinance interpretation.
Applicant David Tozac and supporters argued the two cabins are modest and historically rented and asked the committee not to treat the property as a resort. Tozac told the committee the property had been in the family for decades and that rentals were week‑long bookings to reduce traffic. "We do not consider these two little cabins a resort," he said.
Opponents and several town officials argued the county’s ordinance language is clear on multi‑dwelling development and that the application does not fit the criteria for a conditional use. Public commenters raised septic and public‑safety concerns tied to shoreland standards and said prior court decisions complicate any administrative approval.
County legal counsel told the committee that multiple definitions in the zoning ordinance ("resort," "dwelling unit," and "multi‑dwelling development") contain conflicting language and that a 2019 administrative history and a later default judgment have produced inconsistent regulatory paths. She said the matter raises procedural and legal exposure that would be appropriate for a closed attorney‑client briefing before the committee acts.
Given the complexity, the committee voted to table the application until the August 21 meeting and requested a closed‑session legal briefing and further work on ordinance interpretation.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
