Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

Page 6 -- August 1995 Z.B. plan and then follow it. In fact, municipalities had no authority to create per- manent zoning classifications until they adopted a master plan. Little v. Board of County Commissioners, 631 P. 2d 1282 (I981). Ordinance m County Tries to Stop Fishing Business in Conser/'ancy District .County of Adams v. Romeo, 528 N.W. 2d 418 (Wisconsi~O ]995 Romeo owned land in a conservancy district of Adams County, Wis. She raised fish there and stocked them in ponds where the public could fish for a fee. When people caught fish, they could buy them and have them cleaned in a nonresidential building on Romeo's property. Romeo also used the building as a general fish market where people could buy smoked fish, fresh fish, and jams. She had signs posted to advertise the business. The county's Shoreland Protection Ordinance sought to protect navigable waters "from uncontrolled use and development of shorelands." It listed sev- eral uses that were permitted in a conservancy district, including fishing and the cultivation of agricultural crops. The ordinance also allowed nonresiden- tial buildings to be used for raising aquatic animals. The county issued Romeo citations for allegedly engaging in activities the ordinance prohibited. The county later sued Romeo based on the citations, asking the court to stop her from engaging in commercial activities associated with raising fish in a conservancy district. The trial court ruled that Romeo violated the ordinance by running a fee- fishing business, selling fish from a building on the premises, and using signs to advertise her business. It ordered her to forfeit $393 and to stop those activi- ties. Romeo appealed. The appeals court affirmed, holding that the ordinance prohibited fee-fish- ing and retail businesses in a conservancy district. It found Romeo could use the building to raise fish, but could not sell anything there because the ordi- nance prohibited commercial'activity. Once Romeo sold anything from the building, its use changed from agricultural to commercial. Romeo appealed again. DECISION: Reversed in part, and returned to the lower court. Romeo could continue the fee-fishing business, but she had to stop her sales activities and remove her advertising signs. The case was returned to the trial court so the amount that was attributable to the fee-fishing could be deducted from the forfeiture total. Romeo could charge the public to fish her ponds. The ordinance expressly allowed fishing in the conservancy district. Romeo's fee did not change the fact that people were fishing. Fishing was the capturing of fish whether or not a fee was charged. Contrary to the county's, argument, the ordinance did not prohibit commercial activities -- it only prohibited activities that were not expressly permitted. The ordinance did not expressly permit the selling offish and jams. Despite Romeo's arguments, raising and selling fish were not agricultural activities as envisioned by the ordinance. In fact, agriculture and aquaculture were two very