Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />lie health, morals and safety" as well as "the promotion of public welfare, <br />convenience and general prosperity." The appeals court could not substi- <br />tute its judgment for that of the board. If there was reasonable evidence <br />to support the board's fi..nding, its decision had to be affurned. <br />Whitbeck argued that the rezoning bene:6.ted Olson only, but the <br />appeals court was not persuaded by this argument; the court was simi- <br />larly unmoved by Whitbeck's due process allegations. Throughout the <br />petitioning process, several public meetings were held, many of which <br />Whitbeck attended with his lawyer. There was sufficient evidence in <br />the record to show that the town and the county boards had consid- <br />ered all of the applicable zoning ordinances in reaching their respec- <br />tive decisions. Further, the record showed that the boards and the <br />town detailed their reasoning behind the decisions. <br />Here, the board supported its decision to rezone Olson's property <br />with the following reasons: 1) there was a need for economic develop- <br />ment and recreational facilities in the area; 2) keeping the parcel in an <br />agricultural zone was not thebest use as the land was not conducive to <br />agriculture; 3) the zoning change would allow vacationers to use north- <br />ern lakes in the state; 4) the rezoniD,g met the land use plan; and 5) the <br />land was hidden and rezoning it would not affect anyone adversely. <br />Whitbeck argued that the board failed to follow speciL-s.c regulations <br />with regard to rezoning petitions, but the appeals court found the part <br />of the ordinance to which Whitbeck referred did not layout require- <br />ment; rather, it listed issues that a board should consider. The appeals <br />court found that the board did consider the appropriate issues as evi- <br />denced by its findings, noting that there was no requirement "that a <br />legislative body [had] to prove that it considered certain standards or <br />employed specific magic words." <br />Because the decision finding the spot zoning in the public's inter- <br />est and not solely beneficial to Olson was supported by the record, it <br />was affirmed. <br /> <br />See also: State v. Shaffer, 96 Wis. 2d 531, 292 N. W.2d 370 (Ct. <br />App.1980). <br /> <br />See also: Step Now Citizens Group v. Town of Utica Planning & <br />Zoning Committee, 264 Wis. 2d 662, 2003 WI App 109, 663 N. W,2d <br />833 (Ct. App. 2003). <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />108 <br />