Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2006

Home

Page 2 - October.25, 2006 ZB. Ordinance- Rezoning ordinance conditioned upon specific landowner Severing ownership restriction wou14 make new classification transferable Citation: Bettendorf v. St. Croix County, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 3, No. 2005AP 1286 (2006) WISCONSlN (08/24/06) - Bettendorf used his land in St. Croix County for commercial purposes since 1971, although the land was not zoned for commer- cial use. In 1985, Bettendorf requested that the county rezone his land to commercial. The county board of adjustment allowed Lot 1 to be rezoned on the condition that, if Bettendorf sold the property, it would revert to agricultural. residential. In 1990, Bettendorf applied for and received a special use permit to build and operate a truck repair shop on Lot 1. Bettendorf sought to sell the property, which would trigger the rezoning of the property to agricultural residential and the subsequent revocation of the special use permit. Bettendorf sued the county, arguing that the ownership clause pertaining to his land was severable. Sever- ing the ownership clause would leave Lot 1 rezoned commercial without any conditions, and, therefore, transferable. The county argued that the ownership portion of the ordinance was not severable because without the ownership clause the ordinance did not present the complete law intended by the board. The court found in Bettendorf's favor, and the county appealed. DECISION: Reversed. . If a statute had two distinct parts that were not dependent on each other and one of those parts was found to be invalid, the invalid portion could be severed and the remainder of the law would remain intact. In this case, the ownership clause was not severable from the rest of the ordin~ce. The language of the ordinance rezoning Lot 1 "only for... Bettendorf's use" made clear that the board intended to rezone the land under that condition only. If the ownership clause was removed, the ordinance would have an affect clearly not intended by the board: the permanent and transferable zoning re- classification of Lot 1. Because the appeals court found that the ownership clause was an invalid conditional clause that was not severable, the entire ordinance was void. In addition to reversing the lower court's decision, the appeals court revoked Bettendorf's special use permit, as it was based on the invalid rezoning of Lot 1 for commercial use. ., , 1 Coastal Zone - Land adjacent to shore covered by more than one ordinance Landowner argues less restrictive ordinance more appropriate to property Citation: Logan v. City of Biddeford, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, No. Yor-05-347 (2006) MAlNE (08/17/06) - Logan owned four contiguous lots within both the Coastal @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 58