DCPREZ-0000-04116 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STAFFORD, ROSENBAUM, RIESER & HANSEN Mr. Ron Larson November 16, 1987 Page 2 Ms. Hanzel ' s lot is partly, but not entirely, surrounded by other lots used for duplexes . Currently, it is on the border between a duplex district and other, less intensive, uses . In this respect her property is unlike that in the case of Geisenfeld v. Shorewood, 232 Wis . 410, 415, 287 N.W. 682 (1939) , cited by Mr. Lathrop. In that case, the plaintiff' s property was zoned residential , but was virtually surrounded by business and apartment uses. Here, where Ms . Hanzel ' s property is on the border between duplexes and less dense uses, the town has substantial discretion to determine where that border should be drawn. As for the "taking" issue, Mr. Lathrop' s letter quoted part of a paragraph from Howell Plaza, Inc. v. State Highway Comm. , 92 Wis . 2d 74, 85, 284 N.W. 2d 887 (1979) . The remainder of the paragraph, which was not quoted, states the test for what constitutes a taking : "Thus , a taking occurs where ' the restriction pratically or substan- tially renders the land useless for all reasonable purposes . '" It seems very improbable Ms . Hanzel could meet this test if she claimed an unconstitutional taking. The discussion above summarizes the basis for my opinion that the town is not required, as a matter of constitutional law, to approve the rezoning. The discussion below states the basis for my opinion that the town is not required, as a matter of adherence to its land use plan, to disapprove the rezoning. When the town acts to approve or disapprove a zoning request it is exercising its legislative discretion in a zoning decision that the legislature has made a joint decision involv- ing the county and the town. Quinn v. Town of Dodgeville, 122 Wis. 2d 570, 578-581, 364 N.W. 2d 149 (1985) . In exercising its discretion, the town should refer to the land use plan as a guide, but probably is not required to adhere to the letter of the plan in every instance. In my opinion, the town can deviate from a specific provision in the plan if, under the particular facts of a rezoning, the rezoning will not harm the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the town, and will not harm the general goals and policies of the land use plan. The county development plan, of which Dunn' s land use plan is an approved part, is to serve as a "guide" to decisions affecting development. Sec. 59 . 97 (3) (d) , Stats . The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in commenting on the statutory requirement that city zoning be "in accordance with a comprehensive plan, " has suggested that the plan is a "guide to community development, " implying that a plan need not always be adhered to in slavish