Laserfiche WebLink
= h t <br /> rte. A .t.� .1:�` � Zy YGI,•`'. ':,„ <br /> it <br /> f aJ yam°f <br /> 140' <br /> - <br /> r.,.., <br /> 1 <br /> 14 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. [OCT. <br /> Just v.Marinette County,56 Wis.2d 7. <br /> elevation of the lake. Thus, the property is included in <br /> a conservancy district and, by sec. 2.29 of the ordinance, <br /> classified as "wetlands." Consequently, in order to place <br /> more than 500 square feet of fill on this property, the <br /> Justs were required to obtain a conditional use permit <br /> from the zoning administrator of the county and pay <br /> a fee of $20 or incur a forfeiture of $10 to $200 for each <br /> day of violation. <br /> In February and March of 1968, six months after the <br /> ordinance became effective, Ronald Just, without secur- <br /> ing a conditional use permit, hauled 1,040 square yards <br /> of sand onto this property and filled an area approxi- <br /> mately 20 feet wide commencing at the southwest corner <br /> and extending almost 600 feet north to the northwest <br /> corner near the shoreline, then easterly along the shore- <br /> line almost to the lot line. He stayed back from the <br /> pressure ridge about 20 feet. More than 500 square feet <br /> of this fill was upon wetlands located contiguous to the <br /> water and which had surface drainage toward the lake. <br /> The fill within 300 feet of the lake also was more than <br /> I 2,000 square feet on a slope less than 12 percent. It is <br /> not seriously contended that the Justs did not violate <br /> the ordinance and the trial court correctly found a vio- <br /> lation. <br /> The real issue is whether the conservancy district pro- <br /> ; visions and the wetlands-filling restrictions are uncon- <br /> 1 stitutional because they amount to a constructive taking <br /> of the Justs' land without compensation. Marinette <br /> county and the state of Wisconsin argue the restrictions <br /> of the conservancy district and wetlands provisions con- <br /> stitute a proper exercise of the police power of the state <br /> and do not so severely limit the use or depreciate the <br /> value of the land as to constitute a taking without com- <br /> pensation. <br /> To state the issue in more meaningful terms, it is a <br /> conflict between the public interest in stopping the <br /> I ! <br /> li <br />