DCPCUP-2017-02405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dane County Zoning & Lard Regulation Committee January 17, 2018 Page 7 Other municipalities have revoked CUPS on similar or lesser grounds, and the Wisconsin courts have upheld their decisions. in Della 8iulogical Reassures Inc. o. 0oaM of Zoning Appeals, the court agnvM the City of Milwaukee could deny a CUP reapplication Ina plavmu enwi where neighbors reported the center increased the number of loiterers in the area and Impaled the public convenience and protection W health and Properly. 160 Wis. M WI5, 914-15,467 N.W.M 168 (Ct. App. 1941). The court pointcvl to the City's own ordinance requiring that the CUP use "Will net impact adversely on adjoining property or the neighborhood in general" and will sopemtej) in a ma urer so that the public health, safely and welfare is protected." Id. at %I. In light of flevioWtionv brought to the setting buanl's attention by neighbors, thecoun upheld the decision to deny the CuPreapplicaNrm, stating "wecamwl say that [the lamul -sl dcisioni not reasonably supported by the vrxl"Id. at 913. Mm0mly, a Wisconsin court uphold u municipally's outright denial of a concrete batch plan CUP based specifically on Impact to summoning property values. The town In Career Concrete C + .Supply Cn'v. Team of Hundmldl drew oil its experience with another concrete batch plant within its jurisdiction to concludo that the CUP being considered would abut adversely impact neighbnm' property values. 2001 WI App 75,114,242 Wis. M 477,625 N. W.M 360 (unpublished).'11he court held this was modumahle, co maiming credible evidence an support IM denial. Id. at 114. '1'he'1'ukiendorfs have presented definitive and compelling evidence that their home has lost as much as half of its valve due to the Cattell Pont. The standards of Dare Co. Ord. § ip 255(2)(h) are no longer met, and the CUP Should be revoked under Dane Co. Ord. § 10.ZZ(m). Additionally, the CUP was not properly issued to begin with,as Mr. Cattell applied to the'1'own of Cotlage Grove for Its permit first, without applying in the County grates required by Dow County Ord. § 10,255(1)(e). Purely, Dane County's CUPrevocation procedure rryuims a public heading. Doe Co. Ord. § 10.255(2)(m). Local zoning decisions require due process prolediam like public notice and hearing "In give owners of properly involved and other interested parties a fair oppadunity to be heard." Vdber v. Torso of Saukville, 209 Win. 2d 214, 244, 552 N.W.2d 41Z 420 (1997). We urge the ZLR to hold a public hearing on this nevncztion request in order to facilitate a fair and Impelled review of the C dvI1 CUP, and W exercise its oversight over Dome County zoning staff an this matter to dare. In sum, the Cattell CLIP viulati thelaw in Dane County. AS the Wisconsin Supreme (ind has Coniomd, "lc[ondidonai uses,..nmy well create special problem and hazards if allowed to develop." Sfataea rva, Skelly Oil Ca, V. C'otnrnou Council, Cilyaf Dekgfjd4, M Wis.2r1095, 70D -01, 207 N. W.2d 565, 587 (19733).'lhe Cauell Plant's seven years of operation have created problems ant hazards that are incompatible with the Abashment 1, pg.7