1973 c. 60
,
336
;
1981 c. 289
,
354
;
1983 a. 192
ss.
132
,
133
,
303 (2)
;
1987 a. 395
;
1991 a. 316
;
1993 a. 171
;
1995 a. 201
s.
479
; Stats. 1995 s. 59.694;
1997 a. 35
;
2005 a. 34
;
2011 a. 135
.
Judicial Council Note, 1981:
Subsections (11), (12) and (13) have been repealed as unnecessary because in large part they merely describe the remedy of certiorari, which is now available in an ordinary action. See s. 781.01, stats., and the note thereto. Those provisions of the repealed subsections which permit departure from ordinary certiorari procedures, such as augmentation of the record by the court, have been placed in sub. (10). No substantive change in the scope or standard of review is intended. [Bill 613-A]
There is no significant difference between “unnecessary hardship" under s. 59.99 [now s. 59.694] (7) (c) and “practical difficulties." Grounds for variances are discussed. Snyder v. Waukesha County Zoning Board,
74 Wis. 2d 468
,
247 N.W.2d 98
(1976).
An aggrieved person has the right to appeal to the board of adjustment from a zoning committee's decision to grant conditional use permits. League of Women Voters v. Outagamie County,
113 Wis. 2d 313
,
334 N.W.2d 887
(1983).
Aggrieved residents had the right to appeal even though they did not appear at committee hearings. Commencement of construction, not publication of hearing notices, constituted notice to residents that a permit had been issued. The standard of review is discussed. State ex rel. Brookside v. Jefferson County Board of Adjustment,
131 Wis. 2d 101
,
388 N.W.2d 593
(1986).
Filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari, without more, did not satisfy the requirement under s. 59.99 [now s. 59.694] (10) that an action be commenced within 30 days. Schwochert v. Marquette County Board,
132 Wis. 2d 196
,
389 N.W.2d 841
(Ct. App. 1986).
A trial court must exercise discretion when taking additional evidence pursuant to s. 59.99 [now s. 59.694] (10). If evidence taken is substantially similar to that which the board received, review is confined to a certiorari standard. Klinger v. Oneida County,
149 Wis. 2d 838
,
440 N.W.2d 348
(1989).
Under
Brookside
, the appeal time begins to run at the time notice is given, if the zoning ordinance has a notice provision, and if there is no notice provision, when the aggrieved parties find out about the decision. DNR v. Walworth County Board of Adjustment,
170 Wis. 2d 406
,
489 N.W.2d 631
(Ct. App. 1992).
The 30-day limitation period for commencing a certiorari action under s. 59.99 [now s. 59.694] (10) applies to the time allowed for filing an action that is commenced by a complaint and applies to the time allowed for service when commenced by writ. DNR v. Walworth County Board of Adjustment,
170 Wis. 2d 406
,
489 N.W.2d 631
(Ct. App. 1992).
General, rather than explicit, standards regarding the granting of special exceptions may be adopted and applied by a governing body. The applicant has the burden of formulating conditions showing that the proposed use meets the standards. Upon approval, additional conditions may be imposed by the governing body. Kraemer & Sons v. Sauk County Adjustment Board,
183 Wis. 2d 1
,
515 N.W.2d 256
(1994).
The 30-day period to appeal a decision under s. 59.99 [now s. 59.694] (10) runs from the entry of the original decision in a matter and is not extended by filing a motion to reconsider unless the motion raises a new issue. Bettendorf v. St. Croix County Bd. of Adjustment,
188 Wis. 2d 311
,
525 N.W.2d 89
(Ct. App. 1994).
A variance may be granted if application of the zoning ordinance results in unnecessary hardship and the condition is unique to the parcel. Concerns over the most profitable use of a parcel are not proper grounds for granting variances. State v. Winnebago County,
196 Wis. 2d 836
,
540 N.W.2d 6
(Ct. App. 1995),
94-3199
.
The legal standard of unnecessary hardship requires that the property owner demonstrate that without a variance there is no reasonable use for the property. When the property owner has a reasonable use for the property, the statute takes precedence and the variance should be denied. State v. Kenosha County Board of Adjustment,
218 Wis. 2d 396
,
577 N.W.2d 813
(1998),
96-1235
. See also State v. Outagamie,
2001 WI 78
,
244 Wis. 2d 613
,
628 N.W.2d 376
,
98-1046
.
Failure to join an indispensable party in a certiorari action under sub. (10) is not jurisdictional. Filing the certiorari action tolls the 30-day period of limitations. Failure to name the party within the 30-day statutory period does not require dismissal. County of Rusk v. Rusk County Board of Adjustment,
221 Wis. 2d 526
,
585 N.W.2d 706
(Ct. App. 1998),
98-0298
.
The burden is on the applicant for a variance to demonstrate through evidence that without the variance he or she is prevented from enjoying any reasonable use of the property. State ex rel. Spinner v. Kenosha County Board of Adjustment,
223 Wis. 2d 99
,
588 N.W.2d 662
(Ct. App. 1998),
97-2094
.
The notice of claim provisions of s. 893.80 do not apply to certiorari actions under sub. (10). Kapischke v. County of Walworth,
226 Wis. 2d 320
,
595 N.W.2d 42
(Ct. App. 1999),
98-0796
.
Review of a certiorari action is limited to determining: 1) whether the board kept within its jurisdiction; 2) whether the board proceeded on a correct theory of law; 3) whether the board's action was arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable; and 4) whether the evidence was such that the board might reasonably make its order. Kapischke v. County of Walworth,
226 Wis. 2d 320
,
595 N.W.2d 42
(Ct. App. 1999),
98-0796
.
The state, in administering the Fair Housing Act, may not order a zoning board to issue a variance based on characteristics unique to the landowner rather than the land. County of Sawyer Zoning Board v. Department of Workforce Development,
231 Wis. 2d 534
,
605 N.W.2d 627
(Ct. App. 1999),
99-0707
.
A variance authorizes a landowner to establish or maintain a use prohibited by zoning regulations. A special exception allows the landowner to put the property to a use expressly permitted but that conflicts with some requirement of the ordinance. The grant of a special exception does not require the showing of hardship required for a variance. Fabyan v. Waukesha County Board of Adjustment,
2001 WI App 162
,
246 Wis. 2d 851
,
632 N.W.2d 116
,
00-3103
.
The public policy of promoting confidence in impartial tribunals may justify expansion of the certiorari record when evidence outside of the record demonstrates procedural unfairness. However, before a circuit court may authorize expansion, the party alleging bias must make a prima facie showing of wrongdoing. Sills v. Walworth Cty Land,
2002 WI App 111
,
254 Wis. 2d 538
,
648 N.W.2d 878
,
01-0901
.
An ordinance requirement that no special use permit will be granted unless it is “necessary for the public convenience" meant that the petitioner had to present sufficient evidence that the proposed use was essential to the community as a whole. Hearst-Argyle Stations v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Milwaukee,
2003 WI App 48
,
260 Wis. 2d 494
,
659 N.W.2d 424
,
02-0596
.
Area variance applicants need not meet the no reasonable use of the property standard that is applicable to use variance applications. The standard for unnecessary hardship required in area variance cases is whether compliance with the strict letter of the restrictions governing area, set backs, frontage, height, bulk, or density would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity with those restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. Ziervogel v. Washington County Board of Adjustment,
2004 WI 23
,
269 Wis. 2d 549
,
676 N.W.2d 401
,
02-1618
.
In evaluating whether to grant an area variance to a zoning ordinance, a board of adjustment should focus on the purpose of the zoning law at issue in determining whether an unnecessary hardship exists for the property owner seeking the variance. The facts of the case should be analyzed in light of that purpose, and boards of adjustment must be afforded flexibility so that they may appropriately exercise their discretion. State v. Waushara County Board of Adjustment,
2004 WI 56
,
271 Wis. 2d 547
,
679 N.W.2d 514
,
02-2400
.
When reviewing a decision to grant or deny a conditional use permit, a county board of adjustment has the authority to conduct a de novo review of the record and substitute its judgment for the county zoning committee's judgment. Moreover, under the applicable state statute, a board has authority to take new evidence. Osterhues v. Board of Adjustment for Washburn County,
2005 WI 92
,
282 Wis. 2d 228
,
698 N.W.2d 701
,
03-2194
.
A board of appeals may not simply grant or deny an application with conclusory statements that the application does or does not satisfy the statutory criteria, but shall express, on the record, its reasoning why an application does or does not meet the statutory criteria. Even when a board's decision is dictated by a minority, these controlling members of the board ought to be able to articulate why an applicant has not satisfied its burden of proof on unnecessary hardship or why the facts of record cannot be reconciled with some requirement of the ordinance or statute. A written decision is not required as long as a board's reasoning is clear from the transcript of its proceedings. Lamar Central Outdoor, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Milwaukee,
2005 WI 117
,
284 Wis. 2d 1
,
700 N.W.2d 87
,
01-3105
.
Although a county's ordinance used the term “variance" to describe an exception to the setback standard, it did not have the technical legal meaning commonly used in a zoning context. Rather, under the terms of the ordinance, a “variance" could be granted as part of the conditional use permit process, not as a separate determination based on the demonstration of a hardship. Roberts v. Manitowoc County Board of Adjustment,
2006 WI App 169
,
295 Wis. 2d 522
,
721 N.W.2d 499
,
05-2111
.
The court's opinion that a deck was optimally located in its current position was not the relevant inquiry in regard to the granting of an area variance. The board of adjustment was justified in determining that the property owner's desire for the variance to retain their nonconforming deck was based on a personal inconvenience rather than an unnecessary hardship. Block v. Waupaca County Board of Zoning Adjustment,
2007 WI App 199
,
305 Wis. 2d 325
,
738 N.W.2d 132
,
06-3067
.
Ziervogel
did not state that use cannot be a factor in an area variance analysis. It stated that use cannot overwhelm all other considerations in the analysis, rendering irrelevant any inquiry into the uniqueness of the property, the purpose of the ordinance, and the effect of a variance on the public interest. Here, the board properly considered the purpose of the zoning code, the effect on neighboring properties, and the hardship alleged. Driehaus v. Walworth County,
2009 WI App 63
,
317 Wis. 2d 734
,
767 N.W.2d 343
,
08-0947
.
Nothing in sub. (10) prevented an applicant whose conditional use permit (CUP) was denied from filing a second CUP application rather than seeking certiorari review. A municipality may enact a rule prohibiting a party whose application to the zoning board has been denied from filing a new application absent a substantial change in circumstances, but that was not done in this case. O'Connor v. Buffalo County Board of Adjustment,
2014 WI App 60
,
354 Wis. 2d 231
,
847 N.W.2d 881
,
13-2097
.
Zoning ordinances are in derogation of the common law and are to be construed in favor of the free use of private property. To operate in derogation of the common law, the provisions of a zoning ordinance must be clear and unambiguous. HEEF Realty and Investments, LLP v. City of Cedarburg Board of Appeals,
2015 WI App 23
,
361 Wis. 2d 185
.
861 N.W.2d 797
,
14-0062
.
Short-term rental was a permitted use for property in a single-family residential district under the City of Cedarburg's zoning code. A zoning board cannot arbitrarily impose time or occupancy restrictions in a residential zone where there are none adopted democratically by the city. There is nothing inherent in the concept of residence or dwelling that includes time. HEEF Realty and Investments, LLP v. City of Cedarburg Board of Appeals,
2015 WI App 23
,
361 Wis. 2d 185
.
861 N.W.2d 797
,
14-0062
.
City or village residents are not eligible for service on a county zoning board of adjustment. 61 Atty. Gen. 262.
A self-created or self-imposed hardship does not constitute an unnecessary hardship for which a county zoning board of adjustment may grant a variance under the provisions of s. 59.99 [now s. 59.694] (7) (c). 62 Atty. Gen. 111.
The extent to which this section authorizes a county board of adjustment to grant zoning variances and review decisions of a county planning and zoning committee is discussed. 69 Atty. Gen. 146.
A county cannot exercise its home rule authority in such a way as to appoint one regular member and one alternate member who reside in the same town to a county board of adjustment.
OAG 2-07
.
A New Uncertainty in Local Land Use: A Comparative Institutional Analysis of
State v. Outagamie County Board of Adjustment.
Friebus. 2003 WLR 571.
The necessity of zoning variance or amendments notice to the Wisconsin department of natural resources under the shoreland zoning and navigable waters protection acts. Whipple, 57 MLR 25.
Conditional Use Permits: Strategies for Local Zoning Procedures. Peranteau. Wis. Law. Sept. 2015.
