X hits on this document

132 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

9 / 52

No.

2006AP450

§ 809.61, the court of review and determination.

appeals certified this case to We accepted the certification.

us

for

¶13

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW "The interpretation and application of an ordinance to

an

undisputed

set

of

facts

is

a

question

of

law,

which

this

court decides de novo." ¶6, 260 Wis. 2d 633, 660

Bruno v. Milwaukee County,

2003 WI 28,

N.W.2d

656.

The

constitutionality

of

an

ordinance

is

also

a

question

of

law,

which

this

court

reviews

de novo.

Wilke v.

City of

Appleton,

197

Wis.

2d

717,

726,

541

N.W.2d

198

(Ct.

App.

1995).

¶14

III. ANALYSIS The Club argues that Municipal Code § 4.08(2)(a),

the

B-2 District, violates due

is unconstitutional process in that any

on

its

use

of

face

because

the

property

it is

prohibited

unless

the

landowner

obtains

a

conditional

use

permit.

It further argues that

standards

for

the

landowner

to

The

Town

of

Rhine,

on

the

other

§

4.08(2)(a)

is

constitutional.

does

allow

for

certain

uses

of

there are no clear and objective obtain a conditional use permit. hand, argues that Municipal Code It argues that the B-2 District the property under a conditional

use permit, zoning does

and not

therefore, allow any

it is use.

inaccurate to assert that B-2 The Town of Rhine also argues

that Municipal Code § obtaining a conditional

4.01 use

sets forth adequate permit, and it asserts

standards for that a number

of other municipalities have conditional

use provisions similar

to the Town of Rhine. unconstitutional on its face.

We

conclude

that

§

4.08(2)(a)

is

7

Document info
Document views132
Page views132
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 14:50:20 UTC 2016
Pages52
Paragraphs3975
Words12857

Comments