Laserfiche WebLink
ARGUMENT <br />I. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT'S INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE <br />SUSTAINED. <br />A. The Decision of the Board of Adjustment is <br />Entitled to Deference by This Court. <br />The standard of review of the Board of Adjustment's <br />decision in this matter is agreed upon by the parties as <br />that standard which is used for reviewing decisions of <br />administrative agencies generally. As such the Board of <br />Adjustment's decision is entitled to deference by this <br />Court. <br />"Interpretation of a statute by an administrative <br />agency is a conclusion of law which may be <br />independently reviewed by the supreme court. <br />However, the construction and interpretation of a <br />statute by the administrative agency which must apply <br />the law is entitled to great weight and if several <br />rules or applications of rules are equally consistent <br />with the purpose of the`Statute, the court should <br />defer to the agency's interpretation. In general, <br />the reviewing court should not upset an <br />administrative agency's interpretation of a statute <br />if there exists a rational basis for that <br />conclusion." Environmental Decade v. ILHR Dept., 104 <br />Wis. 2d 640, 644 (1981). <br />In United Way of Greater Milwaukee v. DILHR, 105 Wis. 2d <br />447 (Ct. of Appeals, 1981), the court held that it would <br />sustain the interpretation of a statute by an administrative <br />agency because it was (1) reasonable, (2) not in conflict with <br />precedent and (3) not contrary to the purposes of the entire <br />chapter. Applying the Environmental Decade and United Way <br />tests here, the court must conclude that the Board of <br />Adjustment's decision is correct. <br />