|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
DCPVAR-1983-01141
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
VARIANCES
>
DCPVAR-1983-01141
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2023 11:01:28 AM
Creation date
2/4/2014 1:51:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Zoning Permits
AccelaLink
DCPVAR-1983-01141
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
185
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
uses. The Dane County Zoning Ordinance goes further, however, <br />by requiring mineral extraction operations to be registered <br />with the Dane County Zoning Administrator. The Dane County <br />Zoning Ordinance also recognizes the intermittent nature of <br />mineral extraction operations where actual use is dependent <br />upon many factors, including the proximity of the mineral <br />extraction operations site to construction projects and the <br />level of construction activity generally. As intermittent <br />uses, mineral extraction operations are allowed to continue if <br />registered, without regard to whether they are in fact <br />actively worked. <br />Armed with this knowledge of the industry, the Dane <br />County Board of Supervisors created an ordinance which did two <br />things: made future mineral extraction operations conditional <br />uses and gave to existing operations a variation of <br />nonconforming status, allowing these to continue without <br />active use provided they were registered with the Dane County <br />Zoning Administrator. Given -,the intermittent nature of these <br />operations, this special status obviously has a rational <br />basis. <br />C. The Special Treatment Afforded Mineral Extraction <br />Operations by the Dane County Zoning Ordinance is <br />Consistent With the Zoning Laws of This State. <br />Relators -Plaintiffs, as the parties attacking the <br />validity of this ordinance, have the burden of showing its <br />invalidity. <br />"It is a basic maxim of statutory construction that <br />ordinances, like statutes, enjoy a presumption of <br />validity." State ex. rel. Grand Bazaar v. Milwaukee, <br />105 Wis. 2d 203, 208 (1982). <br />and <br />"...the party challenging an ordinance bears the <br />frequently insurmountable task of demonstrating beyond <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.