Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 -- May 1995 Z.B. <br /> <br /> Conditional Use -- Shooting Club Challenges Restrictions On Activities <br /> Hartland Sportsman's Club Inc. v. Town of Delafield, 35 F. 3d 1198 <br /> (Wisconsin) 1994 <br /> In 1955, Hartland Sportsman's Club Inc. wanted to operate a shooting <br /> range"0n 40 residential acres in Delafield,' Wis. The range was not an' <br /> allowed use, but the town board granted the club a permit anyway. In 1964, <br /> the board created some restrictions, including limits on shooting hours and a <br /> requirement that the town approve special events. <br /> In 1968, the town board issued the club a permit to build an indoor rifle <br /> range. The permit limited the number of traps and members permitted, and <br /> allowed the town board to review conditions it thought the club had violated. <br /> The board also gave itself power to change the conditions, if it had a valid <br /> reason, after notice and a hearing. The club claimed it declined the permit <br /> because of these review provisions. <br /> Over the years, the club got more residential neighbors, an increasing <br /> number of whom complained about noise..The general public's use of the <br /> club grew, and law enforcement agencies used it for training and shooting <br /> practice. <br /> In 1.991, 51 neighbors filed a petition with the town board regarding the <br /> noise. After six months of trying to resolve the. dispute, a special committee <br /> found the club violated some of the permit's conditions. <br /> The board told the club it would hold an administrative hearing to <br /> review compliance with the permit and to consider changing the conditions. <br /> The notice stated that the hearing could be adjourned or continued, but it did <br /> not state that the club could call witnesses or that there would be sworn <br /> testimony. Before the hearing, however, the town's attorney gave the club's <br /> lawyer a copy of the proceeding's format. The club's lawyer attended the <br /> hearing and several members testified. <br /> Relying on the power it gave itself in the 1968 permit, the town board <br />issued a new permit that further li?nited the club's hours and its ability to <br />hold special events. It also limited members' guests to one per day. The club <br />claimed the new restrictiOns virtually shut it down; · <br /> The club sued the town, alleging that the town violated its due process <br />rights because the notice was inadequate and the new permit conditions <br />deprived the club of a vested right to operate. The.club also said that under <br />~state taw, the town had no power to issue the 1968 permit. The court granted <br />the town judgment, and the club appealed, <br />DECISION: Affirmed, !n favor of the town.. .. ' <br /> The town did not deny the club any due process' hghts. The hearing <br />notice was adequate and the town board did not violate the federal Constitu- <br />tion even though it violated state law regarding zoning permits:. <br /> The notice reasonably told the club that the,,he, ari~g w. aS~scheduled and <br />gave the club a chance to prepare. The club 'was'fully aware of the issues and <br />knew a formal hearing was scheduled, not just another meeting. The notice <br /> <br /> <br />