Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2006

Home

Page 6 - August 10, 2006 . Z.B. solely on the value of the condemned portion. The appropriate valuation of the property would be the price that the prop- erty would bring on the open market as a fair sale. In determining that value, the court could consider land-use restriction~. However, the court could not con- sider land-use restrictions that might reduce the value of the condemned por- tion without reference to the highest and best use of the entire parcel. see also: County of Clark v. Buckwalter, 974 P.2d 1162 (1999). Ordinance - Town disagrees with zoning administrator Claims lot measurement had to be taken at most lakeward point Citation: Town of Bass Lake v. Sawyer County, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 3, No. 2005AP1691 (2006) WISCONSIN (06/06/06) - FA~, LLC acquired lakefront property in the town of Bass Lake. It divided the property into two lots. The county zoning administra- tor approved the division. However, the town believed that the lots did not meet the 100-foot width requirement of the local zoning code. In relevant part, the code stated that "the average lot width shall be calculated by measuring the lot width atright angles to its depth at all points along its depth." Specifically, the town believed that any measurement had to take place at the most lakeward point of the ordinary high-water mark. The town sued, and the court ruled in favor of the county. The town appealed, arguing that the language "at all points along its depth" meant that the applicable law required the 100-foot width measurement had to be taken at the most lakeward portion of the ordinary high-water mark. DECISION: Affinned. The local governing body had to evaluate and interpret an issue according to the purpose of the zoning restriction in question. The evidence demonstrated that the lots complied with the minimum frontage and width requirements. . There was no law stating that the minimum width requirement had to com- mence at the most lakeward portion of the ordinary high-water mark even if this required measuring across the lake. The lakebed itself was actually public land, so it followed that the lot-width measurement would use a landward point so it measured the private land and not the state's lakebed. Further, another ordinance stated that "On shoreline lots, the minimum lot width shall be 100 feet and a minimum of 100 feet of frontage at the [ordinill)' high-water mark]." This ordinance stated clearly that there was no lot-width requirement at the ordinary high-water mark - only at the frontage. see also: Wood v. City of Madison, 659 N. W2d 31 (2003). @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 94 (.- ('~ . \