1. Atty. Dean B. Richards Wisc. County Code Administrators March 29, 2012 LEGISLATIVE AND CASE LAW UPDATE

2. Adams Outdoor vs. Dane County Wisconsin Court of Appeals Dane County Feb. 2, 2012 Petition for Review Filed

3. Adams Outdoor vs. Dane County §60.23(29) – Town billboard authority §59.70(22) – County billboard authority –Doesn't apply if town regulates same subject matter §59.69 – General zoning authority –Requires town approval

4. Adams Outdoor vs. Dane County §60.23(29) – Town billboard authority §59.70(22) – County billboard authority –Doesn't apply if town regulates same subject matter §59.69 – General zoning authority –Requires town approval

5. Guse v. City of New Berlin Wisconsin Court of Appeals January 18, 2012

6. Guse v. City of New Berlin New lot may be prohibited if: New lot area less than average of existing New lot width less than average of existing Subdivision platted more than 25 years ago

7. Guse v. City of New Berlin New lot area less than average of existing 29,000 new vs. 41,265 average New lot width less than average of existing 147.5 new vs. 180.91 average Subdivision platted more than 25 years ago 1969 – 43 years ago

8. Guse v. City of New Berlin Unfettered discretion = unconstitutionally vague Arbitrary & Discriminatory –Consistency is a virtue, but inconsistency is not proof of arbitrariness

9. Berger v. Tn. of New Denmark Wisconsin Court of Appeals Brown County January 10, 2012 ©2011 All Rights Reserved Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.

10. Berger v. Tn. of New Denmark Insufficient lot size for development 35 acre minimum 34.5 acres w/o ROW 35.19 acres w/ ROW

11. Berger v. Tn. of New Denmark ”…do hereby grant and convey to Brown County for highway purposes as long as so used…” “…the right of way to be acquired…” Fee or easement?

12. Berger v. Tn. of New Denmark Absent express language to contrary, conveyance for roadway is an easement. ROW strongly suggests easement. Lower court didn’t consider whether ordinance allowed inclusion of ROW for acreage determination.

13. Manlick v. Loppnow Wisconsin Court of Appeals Waukesha County August 2, 2011

14. Manlick v. Loppnow Dispute between adjoining riparian owners Challenge as to which method to use to establish riparian zone Piers had been placed using straight line extension of property line Court adopted coterminous method advocated by surveyor

15. Manlick v. Loppnow Judge should determine riparian line methodology, not a jury, “...because determining which method to apply is a discretionary decision to be based upon principles of fairness.” Juries should decide factual issues, not legal issues

16. Hussein v. Village of Germantown Board of Zoning Appeals Wisconsin Court of Appeals Washington County May 25, 2011

17. Hussein v. Village of Germantown Board of Zoning Appeals Hussein purchased a used car lot that had been operated under a conditional use permit limited to 25 cars. After granting CUP, Village changed zoning district Use car lots were no longer a conditional use

18. Hussein v. Village of Germantown Board of Zoning Appeals Once the zoning district was changed, Village no longer had jurisdiction to grant a CUP CUP went away and lot became a legal, nonconforming use Village could no longer enforce terms of the CUP – including number of cars

19. Zwiefelhofer v. Town of Cooks Valley Wisconsin Supreme Court February 8, 2012

20. Zwiefelhofer v. Town of Cooks Valley Town adopts nonmetallic mining ordinance Does not submit for county approval Application and review process – permits can be issued with or without conditions

21. Zwiefelhofer v. Town of Cooks Valley Current quarry operators challenge validity Unanimous decision of court – 6 members Ordinance is NOT a zoning ordinance and does not require county approval.

22. WTF?

23. Zwiefelhofer v. Town of Cooks Valley Divide an area into multiple districts using text and maps Uses permitted and prohibited Where a use takes place, not how a use takes place

24. Zwiefelhofer v. Town of Cooks Valley Uses classified in general terms – address all possible uses in comprehensive terms Fixed, forward looking determinations and case-by-case Allow permitted, nonconforming

25. Zwiefelhofer v. Town of Cooks Valley Purpose of zoning is to separate incompatible uses NOTE: –Not a bright line definition –Not a question of how many factors tip which way

26. What a difference an election makes! ©2011 All Rights Reserved Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.

27. 2011 Senate Bill 326 Piers Loading platform –Configuration not regulated –Must not exceed 200 sq. ft. 2 personal watercraft for first 50 feet of frontage, 1 per 50' thereafter

28. 2011 Senate Bill 326 Piers Current Grandfathering –Placed by Feb. 6, 2004 –Registered by April 1, 2012 New Grandfathering –Placed before effective date of act –No registration –Can't interfere with riparian rights

29. 2011 Senate Bill 326 Piers Area of Special Natural Resource Interest –Must permit if meet exemption standards –May impose conditions, but not prohibit

30. 2011 Senate Bill 472 Nonconforming structure Development Regulations –Setback –Height –Lot coverage –Side yard

31. 2011 Senate Bill 472 Comp. zoning may not prohibit or limit based on the cost of the repair, maintenance, reconstruction, renovation, or remodeling of a nonconforming structure

32. 2011 Senate Bill 472 Comp. zoning may not prohibit or limit based on the cost of the repair, maintenance, reconstruction, renovation, or remodeling of a nonconforming structure

33. 2011 Senate Bill 472 Shoreland zoning cannot be more restrictive than DNR shoreland zoning standards as to: location, maintenance, expansion, replacement, repair or relocation.

34. 2011 Senate Bill 472 Regulation of substandard lots may not be more restrictive than NR 115.

35. Atty. Dean B. Richards Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c. P.O. Box 2265 Waukesha, WI 53187-2265 262-951-4561 drichards@reinhartlaw.com