Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 15 The United States Supreme Court has appellate jurisdictionover all federal courts and state court cases involving issues of federal law, as well as original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (WISCONSIN) (06/23/ 17)—This case addresses the issue of, when determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred, what is the proper unit of property against which to as- sess the effect of the challenged governmental action. The Background/Facts: The Murr siblings (the "Murrs") own two adjacent lots —Lot E and Lot F-along the lower portion of the St. Croix River in the town of Troy, St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The Murrs' parents purchased Lot F in 1960, and built a small recreational cabin on it. In 1961, the ownership of Lot F was transferred to the family plumbing company. In 1963, the Murrs' parents purchased Lot E, which they held in their own names. In 1994, Lot F was transferred to the Murrs. In 1995, Lot E was transferred to the Murrs. Eventually, the Murrs sought to move the cabin on Lot F to a different por- tion of the lot. They also sought to sell Lot E to fund the cabin relocation project. However, the unification of the lots under common ownership in the 1990s implicated state and local rules that barred their separate sale or development. For the area where the Murrs' property is located, Wisconsin rules prevent the use of lots as separate building sites unless they have at least one acre of land suitable for development. (Wis. Admin. Code §§ NR 118.04(4), 118.03(27), 118.06(1)(a)(2)(a), 118.06(1)(b) (2017).) Under a grandfather clause, substandard lots which were "in separate ownership from abutting lands" on January 1, 1976, the effective date of the regulation, may qualify as separate building sites (Wis. Admin. Code § NR 118.08(4)(a)(1).) The state rules also include a merger provision, which provides that adjacent lots under common ownership may not be "sold or developed as separatelots" if they do not meet the size requirement. (Wis. Admin. Code § NR 118.08(4)(a)(2).) Because Wisconsin rules require localities to adopt parallel provisions, the St. Croix County zoning ordinance contains identical restrictions. (See Wis. Admin Code § NR 118.02(3) and St. Croix County Ordinance § 17.36I.4.a (2005).) The Wisconsin rules also authorize the local zoning authority to grant variances from the regulations where enforcement would create "unnecessary hardship." (§ Wis. Admin. Code NR 118.09(4)(b); St. Croix County Ordinance § 17.09.232.) The Murrs sought variances from the St. Croix County Board of Adjust- ment (the "Board") to enable their building and improvement plan, including a variance to allow the separate sale or use of Lots E and F. The Board denied the requested variances. The Murrs appealed. The state courts affirmed. In particular, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals determined that the relevant St. Croix County Ordinance "effectively merged" Lots E and F, so the Murrs "could only sell or build on the single large lot." The Murrs then filed an action in state court. They alleged that the state and county regulations worked a regulatory taking by depriving them of "all, or practically all, of the use of Lot E because the lot [could not] be sold or developed as a separate lot." © 2017 Thomson Reuters 3