DCPVAR-1983-01141 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

objecting. And as our Supreme Court has noted: "'An ordinance is not invalid as unreasonable merely because substantially the same result might be accomplished by the enactment of a different type of ordinance, or because a less burdensome course might have been adopted to accomplish the end. Again, it has been said that the reasonableness of an ordinance is dependent upon whether it tends to accomplish the objects for which the municipality exists. In other words, to be reasonable, an ordinance must tend in some degree to accomplish the object for which the municipal corporation was created and powers conferred upon it.' 5 McQuillen, Municipal Corporations, sec. 18.06, 347 (3d ed. 1969)" State ex. rel. Grand Bazaar v. Milwaukee, 105 Wis. 2d 203, 211-12 (1982). That is precisely the case here. Dane County could have created a different label for the use in question and Relators -Plaintiffs would have no basis for a challenge. That the County adopted a somewhat inartful use of the "nonconforming" label does not invalidate the ordinance. II. THE DANE COUNTY ZONING QFDINANCE DOES NOT VIOLATE SECTION 59.97(10) OF THE STATUTES. Relators -Plaintiffs claim that the December 1981 amendment to the Dane County Zoning Ordinance cannot have a retroactive impact. Although they do not cite any authority for this proposition, it appears to be based on a theory that Relators -Plaintiffs have gained some kind of property right since they allege they relied upon the ordinance in buying and building their homes. They say then the adjacent mineral extraction operation is a nonconforming use which under sec. 59.97(10), stats., cannot be reactivated once abandoned for more than one year. It is Dane County's position that sec. 59.97(10), stats., does not preclude the County from allowing certain nonconforming uses from continung in effect even though not actively worked for a period of time. -10-