Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/1999

Home

Z.B. December 10, 1998 -- Page 5 property owners actual notice of the proposed changes, and the city's notice made it clear the amendments would rezone certain properties and would change the uses allowed on others. The company didn't have a vested right to operate a meat-processing plant. There was no question the company made substantial expenditures planning to use its property for a meat-processing plant, but the company made all of the improvements without ever getting building permits authorizing the construc- tion. The company couldn't rely on illegal construction to give it a vested right to use the property as it wanted. And contrary to the company's argument, the fact that the city encouraged it to renovate the facility didn't excuse the company's failure to get building permits. The city properly denied the company's rezoning request. Although the city council members did hear comments by citizens prejudiced against the type of workers they expected would work at a meat-processing facility, the Council expressed legitimate concerns for denying the'company's rezoning quest -- including potential odor problems, increased traffic, and increased demands on the city's sewage plant. see also: City of Lamoni v. Livingston, 392 N. W.2d 506 (1986). see also: Shriver v. City of Okaboji, 567N. W. 2d ~97 (1997). Setback Requirements -- Landowner wan'ts variance to build on land divided by creek Citation: Spinner v. Keno&ha County Board of Adjustment, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 2; No; '97-2094 (1998) ' Wron0wski owned shorefront property along Lake'George in a single'-fam- ily residential district !.n. Bristgl, Wis. A.meandering creek divided the prop- erty.... . ,~ ... . . : The zoning ordinance required .b. uildings to be setback 75 feet from any navigable water. This meant buildings on Wronowski's.prpperty had to be 75 feet away fromb0.th the lake and the creek, Because of the setback requirements, only 1,879 square feet of Wronowski's property was buildable. He applied for a variance to build a 2,582-square-foot two-story house. The proposed house had 1,652 square feet of living space on the first floor. To get a variance, Wronowski had to show unnecessary hardship would result if the variance weren't granted. The hardship had to be unique to the property and not a condition personal to the landowner. It also couldn't be self- created or a matter of personal convenience. Finally, the variance could not be contrary to public interest. The county board of adjustment granted the variance. It found that because of the irregular shape of Wronowski's property, enforcing the setback require- ment would create an unnecessary hardship. It concluded that absent a vari-