Laserfiche WebLink
from the centerline of the road. The foundation had already been <br />laid 33 feet from the centerline. The municipality sought a <br />judicial order to compel removal of the garage and impose a fine. <br />The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court. The property <br />owner prevailed at all levels of the case on the same principles <br />here advanced by the park owner. <br />Here, the park owner has purchased "foundations" used as <br />mobile home sites or pads for $1.6 million. His investment should <br />be similarly protected. <br />In another case a commercial developer purchased vacant land <br />and invested over $50,000.00 for survey, architectural services and <br />other expenses in preparation for the future construction of <br />apartment buildings on land zoned for such use. After his <br />investment in a lawful prospective use, the municipality changed <br />its regulatory mind and rezoned the property to the single family <br />home district. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, consistent with the <br />policy purpose of preventing waste of the property owner's <br />investment and to prevent unfairness, held the rezoning could not <br />deprive the owner of his right to construct the apartment <br />buildings. Schroedel vs. Pagels, 257 Wis. 376, 43 N.W.2d 349 <br />(1950) . <br />In addition to the $1.6 million purchase price, since 1984 the <br />park owner has invested another $300,000.00+ for repairs and <br />improvements to the streets, water distribution system, lighting, <br />and the like. The park owner's capital investment in the <br />acquisition and improvement of its lawful park far exceeds the <br />9 <br />