DCPREZ-0000-03599 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Stat. S 62. 23 has. Wis. Stat. S 62 . 23 (7) (d) is a similar statute for protests of rezoning petitions on the city level. Under Wis. Stat. S 62.23 , the court has firmly upheld the use of buffer zones by developers as a valid method of defeating a statutory protest that raises the vote requirement to better than a majority. In Prescher v. Wauwatosa, 34 Wis. 2d 421, 431 (1967) , the court held that only those landowners adjacent to the land where the proposed change is to be made, and not those adjacent to the borders of a whole zoning district in which a specific area is being rezoned, are to be considered valid protesters. In Rodgers v. Village of Menomonee Falls, when a developer created a buffer zone within his parcel, the court was asked to determine whether the measurement for protest purposes under Wis. Stat. § 62 .23 should be from the edge of the entire parcel of property, or only from the edge of the portion of the parcel actually subject to change. The court held: . . .where an applicant for a zoning change seeks to avoid the necessity of a larger than majority vote by creating a buffer zone of 100 feet between that portion of his property sought to be rezoned and the lands of adjacent property owners, such action is valid and avoids the requirement of such larger vote. Id. , at 570, quoting 1 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning (3rd ed. 1969) , ch. 28, sec. 28-1-11J . Therefore, the court determined that the measurement for statutory protest purposes should be from the edge of the property actually changed, and not from the boundary of the parcel wherein the area of proposed change lies. Finally, in Herdeman v. City of Muskeego, 116 Wis. 2d 687 (1983) , the court was faced with a developer who, to avoid a statutory protest, amended its rezoning petition after a statutory protest was filed. The court held that a petitioner may amend its rezoning petition for such purposes. Id. , at 689. The court also held that only those amendments that cause a substantial change in the proposed ordinance as originally advertised must be re-noticed. Id. , at 690-691. Additionally, if the fundamental character of the proposal remained unchanged, no new rights will be created, and no additional notice is necessary. Id. , at 691. Therefore, due to MLI's amendment, the statutory protest filed in this case no longer meets the statutory requirements, and should not affect the voting requirements of the Dane County Board. 2