Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/11/2007

Home

June 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No, 12 Spot Zoning-County admits to spot zoning land for use as a campground Argues rezoning is in public's best interest Citation: Whitbeck v. BarTOn County Bd. of Supervisors, 2007 WL 1412422 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) WISCONSIN (05/15/07)-Olson owned property in the town of Ma- ple Plain, which was D."1 Barron County, in an agricultural zone. Ol- son filed a petition with the town to rezone an 80-acre parcel so that it could be used as a campground. After approval from the town, the petition went before the county board of adjustments. At one of the hearings held to decide on the petition, Whitbeck, who owned property in the area, objected to the plan. In response, Olson agreed to reduce the area to be rezoned from 80 acres to ap- proximately 15 acres. At the next meeting, the board approved the rezoning. Whitbeck appealed to the county board of supervisors. The supervisors met to hear the appeal and decide on the rezoning. After a hearing, the board of supervisors denied Whitbeck's appeal and approved Olson's petition. Whitbeck appealed to court, arguing that the rezoning amounted. to illegal spot zoning and that his due process rights were violated. Whitbeck claimed that the board of supervisors did not adhere to standards set by the county's zoning ordinance. The lowe~ court found in favor of the board, stating that although spot zoning had occurred, it was not illegal because it was in the pub- lic's best D."1terest; the rezoning did not benefit Olson solely. Addition- ally, the court found that Whitbeck had not been denied due process. Whitbeck appealed. Decision: Affirmed. Spot zoning was defined as "the practice whereby a single lot or area [was] granted privileges which [were] not granted or extended to oth- er land in the vicinity in the same use district." However, spot zoning through rezoning was not necessarily illegal; the standard for determining its legality rested on whether it was "in the public'interesT and not solely for the benefit of the property owner who request[ ed] rezoning, absent any showing that a refusal to rezone [would] in effect confiscate his [or her] property by depriving him [or her] of all beneficial use thereof." Factors that the court had to consider were to determine if spot zoning was illegal included: whether the rezoning was consistent 'With long-range planning; the nature and character of the parcel; the use of the surround- D."1g land and the overall scheme or zoning plan; and "the interests of pub- 11 107