DCPVAR-1983-01141 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sec. 59.97(10), stats., is part of the overall statutory scheme which grants to counties the right to enact zoning ordinances. As such its intent "... should be sought from the language of the statute in relation to its scope, history, content, subject matter, and the object intended to be remedied or accomplished ... and when there are several statutes relating to the same subject matter they should be read together and harmonzied, if possible, City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee County, 27 Wis. 2d 53, 56 (1964). In the case of sec. 59.97(10), the court should then look to the entire section 59.97, stats., for the interpretation to be given sec. 59.97(10). Sec. 59.97(1), stats., contains the statement of purpose of the broad delegation of zoning powers to counties and these are further enumerated in sec. 59.97(4), stats. Subsection (5) of sec. 59.97 sets forth the procedure to be used when adopting or amending a zoning ordinance. In none of these sections nor indeed in any other part of the ordinance is there any prohibition against changing the provisions of a zoning district after these have been once adopted. Indeed the statute recognizes there will be changes and makes provisions for formal objections to these. In this context, even assuming that at one time the Dane County Zoning Ordinance did in fact clearly give this mineral extraction site the status of a nonconforming use as Relators - Plaintiffs argue, it is clear that Dane County could at anytime change its zoning ordinance to give to mineral extraction operations a different status. For example, Dane County could have made existing farming operations in the A-2 district nonconforming and then at a later date made farming operations permitted uses or conditional uses. In that event, Relators -Plaintiffs would have no right to complain of the change except through the political process. Dane County -11-