Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018

Home

July 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 14 Zoning Bulletin building permit application —and as such, Golden Sands thus had a vested right to use all of the property for agricultural purposes. Under Wisconsin law, the Building Permit Rule vests the right to use property consistent with current zoning at the time a building permit application that strictly conforms to all applicable zoning regulations is filed. The circuit court concluded that Golden Sands' building permit application was complete and complied with all zoning regulations at the time it was filed. The circuit court also agreed with Golden Sands and concluded that the Build- ing Permit Rule extends to all land identified in the building permit application. Finding there was no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the court issued summary judgment in favor of Golden Sands. The Town appealed. On appeal, the Town argued that Golden Sands' build- ing permit was limited to vesting its right to build the seven structures identi- fied in the building permit but did not also grant Golden Sands the right to use for agricultural purposes the farmland specifically identified in the building permit application. The court of appeals agreed with the Town. The court of appeals distin- guished between the right to build a structure and the right to use land. It determined that "the right to build a structure vests with the filing of a building permit application that strictly conforms to all applicable zoning regulations, but the right to use land vests with open and obvious use under the noncon- forming use doctrine." Based on that distinction, the court of appeals concluded that Golden Sands' building permit vested its right to build the structures, but not to use the other land identified in the building permit ap- plication for agricultural purposes —since Golden Sands was not yet using the land for agricultural purposes. The court of appeals concluded that because Golden Sands had not established a nonconforming use before the Town's zoning ordinance took effect, it could not use any of its land for agricultural purposes. Golden Sands appealed. DECISION: Judgment of court of appeals reversed. Agreeing with Golden Sands, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that "the Building Permit Rule extends to all land specifically identified in a build- ing permit application." The court concluded that, consequently, Golden Sands had a vested right to use all of the property for agricultural purposes. In so holding, the court found that the "primary policy underlining the bright -line Building Permit Rule" was "predictability." The court concluded that predictability was "best advanced by applying the [Building Permit Rule] to all land specifically identified in the building permit application." Otherwise, noted the court, "piecemealing," as advanced by the Town and the court of ap- peals, "would require extensive litigation over how much land specifically identified in the building permit application [was] necessary . . .." Moreover, said the court, "for any business that requires land in addition to structures for its operations, a building peiiuit is nearly worthless if the rights vested by virtue of obtaining a conforming building permit do not extend to the land necessary to put the structures to their proper use." Further, the court said that "[t]o separate structures from their associated land would be to allow zoning 10 ©2018 Thomson Reuters