Laserfiche WebLink
<br />March 15, 2007\ Volume 1 I No.6 <br /> <br />Junkyard-Village seeks removal of Ijunked' vehicles, <br />weeds <br /> <br />Property owner claims vehicles part of collection <br /> <br />Citation: Village of Sherwood v. Hawkinson, 2007 WL 466527 <br />(Wis. Ct. App. 2007) <br /> <br />WISCONSIN (02/14/07)-The village of Sherwood filed a com- <br />plaint against Hawkinson, alleging that the property owner had <br />violated the village's zoning, public nuisance, and junk ordinanc- <br />es. Specifically, the village claimed that Hawkinson had noxious <br />weeds on his property, defined as vegetation in excess of 12 <br />inches high, and several car parts and trash in his yard. <br />Hawkinson claimed that the vehicles were part of a collection. <br />In an earlier case involving Hawkinson, the village had enacted <br />a four-vehicle collector limit, whereby a property owner could <br />store up to four vehicles in a state of repair on his or her prop- <br />erty. However, the village stated that the vehicles on Hawkinson's <br />property were not being restored, were lli-uicensed, and were not <br />on a schedule leading to registration and driveability within the <br />prescribed time of two years. The cars, therefore, were "junk" <br />lli'J.der the ordinance. <br />The court found that there was no indication that Hawkin- <br />son had done anything to preserve or restore the vehicles that <br />"rest[edJ among piles of junk and clutter" with no protection <br />from the elements, and it determined that Hawkinson's property <br />was a junkyard. Hawkinson was ordered to remove the car parts <br />and weeds from his property and repair a fence within 45 days or <br />the village would be allowed to do so at his expense. <br />Hawkinson appealed the decision of the lower court, protest- <br />ing to various procedural elements of the trial and claiming that <br />the lower court had erred on several points as a matter of law. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />The appeals court found that the lower court had not erred, <br />and all of Hawkinson's procedural arguments were without mer- <br />it. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. <br />The mere acquisition of multiple vehicles did not make <br />Hawkinson a collector. Under the village ordinance, a collec- <br />tor was defined as someone with "one or more special interest <br />vehicles who collect[edJ, purchase[dJ, acquire[dJ, trade[dJ or <br />~spose[ dJ of special interest vehicles or parts thereof for the col- <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />163 <br />