|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED FEBRUARY 27, 1996 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-2284
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
WOODLAND HILLS LAND
COMPANY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF DOOR,
Respondent-Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of
the circuit court for Door County:
JOHN D. KOEHN, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J.,
LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Woodland Hills Land Company appeals a judgment denying
its request for certiorari and mandamus relief from the Door County Board's
decision denying Woodland's petition to rezone property and allow construction
of a planned residential unit development (PRUD). The trial court held that its authority to review the county
board's decision was limited and that the board's decision was not arbitrary or
without a basis in fact. Woodland
argues that, without any change to the zoning ordinances, it was entitled to
construct a PRUD because it met the conditions set out in the existing
ordinance. It also argues that the
board's actions, and those of the resource planning committee, were arbitrary
and unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment.
Woodland seeks to
develop property currently zoned as rural residential. The plan, if approved, would create smaller
lot sizes than those currently allowed under the zoning ordinance. After a hearing by the resource planning
committee, the committee recommended that the petition be denied. The county board followed the committee's
recommendation and denied the petition.
The county board was not
compelled to grant construction of the PRUD under the existing ordinance. Even if Woodland satisfied all of the
criteria set out in the ordinance, the county board retains discretion to deny
the petition. The ordinance states that
"The County Board may in its discretion ... approve a Planned Residential
Unit Development" upon finding that a number of conditions are met. Construction of the ordinance is a question
of law. See Hansman v.
Oneida County, 123 Wis.2d 511, 514, 366 N.W.2d 901, 903 (Ct. App.
1985). By its very terms, the zoning
ordinance does not divest the county board of discretionary authority to deny
the petition for zoning amendment or the petition to establish a PRUD merely
because the applicant has met the threshold requirements designated in the
ordinance.
The question is
therefore whether the board reasonably exercised its discretion when denying
the petition. To the extent Woodland
seeks certiorari review of the county board's decision to deny rezoning, the
trial court correctly held that courts have very little authority to review the
board's decision and that the record contains an adequate factual basis for the
board's discretionary decision. Zoning
is a legislative function. Judicial
review is limited and judicial interference is restricted to cases of abuse of
discretion, excess of power or error of law.
See Quinn v. Town of Dodgeville, 122 Wis.2d 570,
586, 364 N.W.2d 149, 158 (1989). If
there is any reasonable basis for the exercise of the legislative power, we are
obligated to uphold the enactment. Id. An attack based on the arbitrariness or
unreasonableness of a legislative action is the equivalent of a claim of
unconstitutionality based on a denial of equal protection of the laws or due
process. Buhler v. Racine County,
33 Wis.2d 137, 143, 146 N.W.2d 403, 406 (1966). The reasonableness of continuing to apply a zoning ordinance to a
particular piece of property is a fairly debatable question that should not be
resolved by the judicial process. Id.
at 146, 146 N.W.2d at 407. Here, the
record establishes debatable questions regarding the effect of the planned
development on the surrounding homes during construction and following its
completion. The county board's decision
is adequately supported by the record to preclude any judicial interference.
To the extent Woodland
seeks certiorari review of the resource planning committee's decision,[1]
the record supports its decision. On
certiorari review, a court may not substitute its view of the evidence for that
of the committee and cannot evaluate the credibility or weight of the
evidence. See Clark v.
Waupaca County Bd. of Adjust., 186 Wis.2d 300, 304, 519 N.W.2d 782, 784
(1994); Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. DILHR, 90 Wis.2d 408, 418, 280 N.W.2d
142, 147 (1979). The committee had the
right to conclude that Woodland had not adequately addressed all of the
concerns raised by the objecting neighbors.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.