Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/1996

Home

Page 4 -- October 1996 Z.B. The City Council denied the request. The company asked a court to declare the council's action invalid. Accord- ing to the company, the proposed business designation was reasonable and the property's residential status was not, so the council arbitrarily denied the re- quest. The company also said the council had no legal reason to deny the re- zoning, which would comply with the city's long-range land use plan and was consistent with other recent rezonings. At a hearing, the company had an expert testify that the property was stuck between industrial and commercial uses, making it "unattractive for residential use." The expert said a restaurant would be an appropriate way to use the prop- erty if it were vacant. The city had experts testify that the residential subdivi- sion was a reasonable use. The experts said the subdivision was a pretty little tree-lined "secret pocket of residential that very few people know about." Many longtime residents signed petitions opposing the rezoning. The city's director of planning and development said the comprehensive plan's goal of changing to industrial uses eventually should be achieved by rezoning the entire area industrial, rather than having a piecemeal commercial phase of development. The court found the council's decision was arbitrary. The court said the residential zoning was' unreasonable, the proposed use was reasonable, and the council had no reason to deny the request. The council appealed to the state Supreme Court.- DECISION: Reversed, in favor of the council. Because people could come to different conclusions about whether the council's denial was arbitrary, the lower court should have upheld it. The judg- ment was reversed, and the council's decision was reinstated. The conflicting evidence made the reasonableness of the council's deci- sion debatable. Although the area was getting developed, the council properly sought to protect a nice residential neighborhood. If both the residential and business classifications could be found reasonable, the council had the power to decide which one to allow. Also, the council properly tried to manage the way in which it implemented its comprehensive plan. County Board of Arlington Cou~ty v. Bratic, 377 S.E. 2d 368 (1989). Board of Supervisors of Loudoun County v. Lerner, 267 S.E. 2d 1 O0 (1980). Variance m Owners say prior variance made three t6ts into one Miswald v. Waukesha County Board of Adjustment, 550 N. W. 2d 434 (Wisconsi~O 1996 The Miswalds owned three parcels near Lake Okauchee in Waukesha County, Wis. One fronted on the lake and had on it the Miswalds' one-story, 730-square-foot home. The back of that lot bordered a street, across from which were the other two parcels. In 1986, the Miswalds wanted to put a detached garage on one of the lots that didn't contain their home. They needed a variance because the garage typically would be accessory to a residence.