Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

May 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I NO.1 0 erty. The oven and furnace that would be used were "nor so dissimilar" to equipment found in residential homes normally as to lead the board to deny the permit. The appeals court also found that the board examined all of the criteria for a special use permit. Each of the determining factors listed in the ordinance were considered, and the conclusions draw-n by the board in each case were supported by evidence in the record.. The ap- peals court noted that "there [was] no basis upon which to annul the determination simply because the [board] failed to include formal find- ings of fact in its decision." Code-Racetrack owner uses separate property as parking lot City claims violation of code regulating off-street parking Citation: City of Shawano v. Midwest Properties of Shawano, LLC, 2007 WL 1120513 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) WISCONSIN (04/17/07)-Midwest Properties owned a racetrack out- side of the city of Shawano. It also owned eight acres of undeveloped land in a business district within the city limits. On two occasions in July 2006, it allowed patrons of the track to park on the city property and it operated a shuttle between the property and the racetrack. On both occasions, the city cited Midwest for violating the zoning code. The city claimed that relevant provisions in the code governed the use of off-street parking and that "overflow" parking was not allowed in the particular district in which the property was located. Specifically, the city said that Midwest violated the part of the code that stated that: "[r]equired off-street parking spaces shall be located on the same lot with the principal use, or, when this requirement cannot be met, such parking spaces may be located off-lot, as a special exception, provided that the parking spaces are located in a district where similar off-street parking facilities are permitted." Midwest appealed the citation vvith the city, but it was upheld. It then appealed the city's decision to court, but'the court found in the city's fa- vor. Midwest appealed again. Decision: Reversed. When a court had to decide the interpretation of a zoning ordinance, it had to read the law vvith the "common, ordinary, and accepted" mean- ing of the language that was used. It also had to read the ordinance in context, considering the language of surrounding or closely related regulations or statutes. Midwest argued that it had not violated the code because the section under which it was cited applied only to businesses that were required 5 193