Laserfiche WebLink
a reasonable doubt that the ordinance possesses no <br />rational basis to any legitimate municipal <br />objective." State ex. rel. Grand Bazaar v. Milwaukee, <br />105 Wis. 2d 203, 209 (1982). <br />It is clear then that if the ordinance bears a rational basis <br />to a legitimate objective of county government, it must stand. <br />The source for county zoning laws is found in sec. 59.97, <br />stats. This section contains a broad grant of powers to <br />counties, sec. 59.97(1) and (4), and specifically allows <br />counties to "Designate certain areas, uses or purposes which <br />may be subjected to special regulation." Sec. 59.97(4)(e), <br />Stats. Mineral extraction operations are precisely the kind <br />of use which may be subjected to special regulation. <br />Relators -Plaintiffs attack the hybrid nonconforming <br />status given mineral extraction operations as violating sec. <br />59.97(10), stats. This section does several things: first, it <br />forbids counties to ban uses existing at the time a zoning <br />district is created; second, it allows counties to ban the <br />expansion of such uses beyondfa certain level; third, it <br />allows counties to ban temporary nonconforming structures and <br />fourth, it states that if "such nonconforming use" is <br />discontinued for a period of 12 months, any future use shall <br />conform to the ordinance. Sec. 59.97(10) clearly does not <br />require the county to create a classification called <br />nonconforming uses nor does it require a county to regulate <br />nonconforming uses in any special way. <br />Although Dane County has in fact assigned the label <br />"nonconforming" to mineral extraction operations in existence <br />at the time the ordinance came into being, it could as easily <br />have applied some other label and used the same regulations it <br />has in fact created here. Clearly, if Dane County had applied <br />a different label, Relators -Plaintiffs would have no basis for <br />-9- <br />