Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />Because Reinhart could not sufficiently establish his disparate impact <br />claim, the court affirmed the decision of the lower court. <br /> <br />Appeal-Landowner submits second application after <br />board limits approval of first <br /> <br />Board refuses to hear 'substantially same' appeal <br /> <br />Citation: Jaros v. Oneida County Bd. of Adjustment, 2007 WL 1064053 <br />(Wis. Ct. App. 2007) <br /> <br />WISCONSIN (04/10/07)-Jaros ow-ned land on Squash Lake. He ap- <br />plied to the planning and zoning department for a permit to make ren- <br />ovations to his home, including building two decks. The zoning board <br />denied his application, claiming that the proposed construction violat- <br />ed the county's shoreline protection ordinance. <br />Jaros appealed the decision to the county's board of adjustment. The <br />board found that the zoning department had misinterpreted the shore- <br />line protection ordinance, and it ordered the permit be issued-with two <br />conditions. The first was that the deck on the east side of the house had <br />to extend away from the ordinary high water mark of the lake, and, sec- <br />ondly, the deck on the west side of the cottage could "not include stairs <br />[facing] toward the lake." <br />Jaros did not appeal the decision of the board. Instead, he submitted <br />a new application to the zoning department. The new applicationes- <br />sentially asked for the two things barred by the board's decision to be <br />approved. The zoning department denied his second application, again <br />citing the shoreline ordinance. Jaros appealed to the board. <br />The board refused to hear the appeal, stating that it had a rule <br />agaiL-"lst hearing repetitive appeals. Jaros admitted that the appeal was <br />an attempt to build the decks as he had proposed originally, but he ar- <br />gued that he had not been given a sufficient opportunity to present his <br />case for the stairs facing the lake and claimed that his second propos- <br />al included modified dimensions for the stairs-making the appeal not <br />repetitious. <br />Jaros sued t..he board in court, but the court found in the board's <br />favor vvithout a trial. In its ruling, the court stated that if "applicants <br />[could] simply make small modifications such as this to avoid [the rule <br />against hearing repetitive appeals], then the rule [would] have no practi- <br />cal force at all." <br />Jaros appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />This appeal's court's review was limited to whether the board's action: <br />1) was within its jurisdiction; 2) was based on a correct theory of law; <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />180 <br />