Laserfiche WebLink
-Z- <br /> ing in the CUP area without a permit from 1984 through October, 1987 , <br /> when the county notified it to cease its operations in the CUP area <br /> and to apply for a conditional use permit . In December, 1987 , Madison <br /> Crushing applied for a conditional use permit , and on January 26, 1988, <br /> the Zoning Committee decided to grant to Madison Crushing CUP 643 . <br /> The next day the plaintiffs initiated this action , pursuant to sec. <br /> 59 .99( 4 ) , Stats. This Court conducted a hearing on the matter, giving <br /> its tentative ruling that the Board of Adjustment (Board) could have <br /> jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs ' appeal. It then sent the record <br /> to the Board. On June 23 , 1988, the Board approved the Zoning Com- <br /> mittee ' s decision, after hearing arguments , taking written evidentiary <br /> matters from the parties, and conducting an on-site view of the quarry <br /> and the neighboring residences . The plaintiffs then appealed to the <br /> Circuit Court which issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting <br /> quarrying activity in the CUP area. On April 7 , 1989, this Court con- <br /> ducted a view of the quarry and vicinity, and on April 13 and 14 , 1989 , <br /> it heard the matter de novo. <br /> Within the last few months , the Wisconsin Supreme Court handed <br /> down a decision regarding the standard a circuit court is to follow when <br /> reviewing the decision of a county board of adjustments . Klinger v. <br /> Oneida County, 149 Wis . 2d 838 , N.W.2d ( 1989 ) , controls the <br /> instant case, and both parties have cited to it . <br /> The Supreme Court affirmed its previous opinions that held <br /> that when the circuit court does not take evidence , it should afford the <br /> Board ' s decision a presumption of correctness and validity if any <br /> reasonable view of the evidence sustains it . The court "should defer <br />