DCPCUP-2017-02405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

We are in receipt of nmspondcnec fain Mr. Roger Lear. "lining Administrator for Dave Cmmty, expressing coneem as to process under the Wisconsin Bupame Court can of Mards v Cedarb ra 176 Wis.2d 14 (1997). It is our position lost the Morris case has no application or the Applicant's pending matter. In Harris, the landowner was cited Quir pusetle Wegd expansion or u mog rued samno�m»ng use. no City's Plan Commission dineend the City s Board of Zoning Appeals to hold a public hewing and issue an interpretation of the noneonforrning use ordinance provisions at issue. The @rind ruled that the property had lost its status, send Ilse loomwnn soughtjudicial review. The Circuit Costa food the fond had cited and marveled I'ar further proceedings. It was then, at a closed messing and subsequent open meeting, tent the Board chairperson mnde certain comments (see below). which triggered u request for accusal, which he rejected. The Board again concluded the properly had lost its noncoms ring status. An appeal egaiufdlowed. 'Ile issue presented was whether a board ammeter had prejudged the noter, such that the right to an impartial decision -mAtie had been violated. A clear statement "suggesting that a decision had already been reached, or prejudged, should suffice to invalidate a deeidon." Three statements by the Chairperson qualified toes prejudgment hies, • "I "he Chainnm refrvcd to the landowner's legal position as a loophole in Imed of closing; • '1Lc Chairmen shoot a the City Attorney and Board Members that they should try "m W Ilandownerl on the Lorne Helmsley can.•• • The Chu inum questioned how the Board could know whether Ilse landowner had legitimate exp rnsCS.