X hits on this document

145 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

42 / 52

No.

2006AP450

Code § 4.08(2)(a),

"B-2 Commercial Manufacturing or Processing."

However, because

districts

are different

this court,

planned unit

planned unlike

unit development the case before

development districts of the landowner.

may See

only Wis.

be established with Stat. § 62.23(7)(b)

the consent (discussing

planned future

unit developments). landowners in planned

The unit

Town of Rhine argues development districts

that are

bound by landowner.

the

restricted uses This, however, is

entered into an economic

by

the previous

and

quantifiable

decision by the

purchaser.

It is not that such land has no use,

it is that landowners

such

land

has

in

the

B-2

designated rights and obligations.

District

did

not

make

a

choice

The to

eliminate

all

precluded

from

conditional

use

landowners

are

Rhine grants

a

who chooses

to

permitted

uses.

Rather, the

any use

unless

the Town of

permit.

While

the landowner

purchase land in the B-2 District has notice of the excessive restriction in the B-2 District, this does not, as we see here, preclude a constitutional challenge to the ordinance.

¶61 The Town of Rhine asserts that this matter is not properly before the court because the Club did not follow through with seeking a conditional use permit. Therefore, the Town of Rhine argues that we cannot determine if the Club was

denied a reasons.

conditional use permit for unreasonable or arbitrary The Town of Rhine argues that if the Club was denied a

conditional use permit for arbitrary or unreasonable reasons, the Club may have a regulatory taking, or as-applied challenge. We do not disagree that one of these claims may be available if 40

Document info
Document views145
Page views145
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 14:53:19 UTC 2016
Pages52
Paragraphs3975
Words12857

Comments