Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/1999

Home

Z.B. March 10, 1999 -- Page 3 . · applied to the township so long as.there were suitable locations somewhere within a reasonable distance.from the township. In determining whether the law was valid as applied to the township, the trial court could consider regional marketing patterns, the availability of public transportation and access by au- tomobiles, and the geographic distribution of customers of similar businesses. see also: Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 'i06 S. Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986). '~ "' ' see also: Young v. American Mini Theatres Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 $.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed. 2d 310 (1976). .. Conditional Use -- Board adds condition years after permit is issued Citation: Bettendorf v. St. Croix County Board of Adjustment, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 3, No. 98-2327 (1999) The. Bettendorfs owned land in Kinnickinnic, Wis. They.requested and re- ceived permission to build a tru~k repair shop and transfer point on part of the land, but an adjoining parcel remained zoned agriculture/residential. When the board approved the Bettendorfs' application,..it discussed the town's request to define the amount of acceptable activity on the land. How- ever, the board issued the permit withoui conditions. Several years later, the county zoning office notified the 'Bettendorfs thai semi-trailers and employees' cars were parking on the adjoining property in violation of the zoning ordinance. The zoning, office ordered the owners to confine all commercial activitY to the appropriate p~cel. The Bettendorfs didn't comply with the zoning office's order, and the board of adjustment sought to revoke the permit. The county zoning or.di~nance al- lowed the board to revoke a permit when a landowner failed to comply with "specified conditions." After a hearing,, the board added a condition to the per- mit, requiring the owners {o build a fence around the commercial property or Iose their conditional use permit. The Bettendorfs asked the court to review the board's decision. The court affirmed the board's decision, and the Bettendorfs appealed. The Bettendorfs claimed the board couldn't add a condition to their permit or revoke the permit because of allegedly improper use of an adjoining parcel. The board argued, however, that the original permit included a condition that the permitted use not spill over onto the adjoining parcel. The board also claimed the conditional use permit had an implied condition that the permitted use be confined to the property. DECISION: Reversed, in the owners' favor. The board improperly added a condition to the permit and later revoked it because of zoning violations on a separate parcel. The permit had to be reinstated. The original permit had no ~'specified conditions" placed on it. The court refused to add conditions~that were discussed at the board's meeting but not