Laserfiche WebLink
5 <br /> Si <br /> 4� it <br /> F n <br /> 22 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. [OCT. <br /> Just v. Marinette County,56 Wis.2d 7. <br /> tiff owned a small tract of a saltwater marsh which was <br /> flooded at high tide. By filling, the land would be adapted <br /> for building purposes. The court held the restrictions <br /> against filling constituted a deprivation of a reasonable <br /> use of the owner's property and, thus, an unreasonable <br /> exercise of the police power. In MacGibbon v. Board of <br /> Appeals of Duxbury (1970), 356 Mass. 635, 255 N. E. <br /> 2d 347, the plaintiff owned seven acres of land which <br /> were under water about twice a month in a shoreland <br /> area. He was denied a permit to excavate and fill part of <br /> his property. The purpose of the ordinance was to pre- <br /> serve from despoilage natural features and resources <br /> such as salt marshes, wetlands, and ponds. The court <br /> took the view the preservation of privately owned land <br /> in its natural, unspoiled state for the enjoyment and <br /> benefit of the public by preventing the owner from using <br /> it for any practical purpose was not within the limit and <br /> scope of the police power and the ordinance was not <br /> saved by the use of special permits. <br /> It seems to us that filling a swamp not otherwise com- <br /> mercially usable is not in and of itself an existing use, <br /> which is prevented, but rather is the preparation for <br /> some future use which is not indigenous to a swamp. <br /> Too much stress is laid on the right of an owner to change <br /> commercially valueless land when that change does dam- <br /> age to the rights of the public. It is observed that a use <br /> of special permits is a means of control and accomplishing <br /> the purpose of the zoning ordinance as distinguished <br /> from the old concept of providing for variances. The <br /> special ep�rmit technique is now common practice and hays <br /> me with judicial approval, And we think it is of some <br /> significance in consi. • - • - no . par icu ar <br /> zo is reasonable. <br /> A recent case sus aining the validity of a zoning <br /> ordinance establishing a flood plain district is Turnpike <br /> Realty Co. v. Town of Dedham (Mass. 1972), 284 N. E. 2d <br />