Case Title: Oneida Seven Generations Corp. v. City of Green Bay

Citation: 2015 WI 50

Docket Number: 2013AP000591

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2015-05-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
2015 WI 50 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP591 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Oneida Seven Generations Corporation and Green 
Bay  
Renewable Energy, LLC, 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
     v. 
City of Green Bay, 
          Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner.   
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at 353 Wis. 2d 553, 846 N.W.2d 33 
(Ct. App. 2014 – Unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 29, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
January 8, 2015  
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Brown 
 
JUDGE: 
Marc A. Hammer 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
ROGGENSACK, C.J. dissents. (Opinion Filed) 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-respondent-petitioner, the cause was 
argued by Ted A. Warpinski, with whom on the briefs was S. Todd 
Farris, Christopher M. Meuler, Joseph M. Peltz, and Friebert, 
Finerty & St. John, S.C., Milwaukee. 
 
 
For the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was argued by 
Michael B. Apfeld, with whom on the brief was Eric J. Wilson, 
Dustin B. Brown, and Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Madison. 
 
 
 
 
2
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Thomas D. Larson, 
Madison, on behalf of the Wisconsin Realtors Association. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2015 WI 50
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.    2013AP591 
(L.C. No. 
2012CV002263) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Oneida Seven Generations Corporation and Green 
Bay Renewable Energy, LLC, 
 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
 
     v. 
 
City of Green Bay, 
 
          Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 29, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.  Oneida Seven Generations 
Corporation sought a conditional use permit to install a 
renewable energy facility in the City of Green Bay (the City).1  
Although the City initially voted to grant the permit, it 
subsequently voted to rescind the conditional use permit on the 
basis that it was obtained through misrepresentation. The court 
                                                 
1 Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC, also a party to this 
action, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Oneida Seven Generations 
Corporation.  We refer to them jointly as ("Oneida Seven"). 
No.  2013AP591   
 
2 
 
of appeals determined that the City's decision that the permit 
was obtained through misrepresentation was not supported by 
substantial evidence and reversed.2  
¶2 
The City now seeks review of the unpublished decision 
of the court of appeals that reversed the order entered by the 
circuit court which had affirmed the City's decision to rescind.  
The City contends that the court of appeals incorrectly applied 
the substantial evidence standard by substituting its judgment 
for that of the City's Common Council. 
¶3 
Like the court of appeals we conclude that the City's 
decision to rescind the conditional use permit was not based on 
substantial evidence.  In conducting a certiorari review to 
determine whether there was substantial evidence to support a 
decision, we consider the evidence in context.   Considering the 
context, we determine that based on the evidence presented, the 
City could not reasonably conclude that the statements by Oneida 
Seven's representative to the City government regarding the 
proposed facility's emissions and hazardous materials, its 
stacks, 
and 
its 
technology 
were 
misrepresentations.  
Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals. 
I 
¶4 
A review of whether there is substantial evidence to 
support a determination that the permit was obtained through 
                                                 
2 Oneida Seven Generations Corp. v. City of Green Bay, No. 
2013AP591, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2014) 
(reversing order of the Circuit Court for Brown County, Marc A. 
Hammer, Judge). 
No.  2013AP591   
 
3 
 
misrepresentation generally requires a fact intensive analysis.  
This case is no exception.  We begin by examining the nature of 
the proposed facility and the record established to support the 
initial grant of the conditional use permit. 
¶5 
Oneida Seven proposed a renewable energy facility that 
would take municipal solid waste and turn it into energy via a 
pyrolytic gasification system.  It described the process as 
follows: municipal waste is delivered to the facility where it 
is sorted and inappropriate materials, such as tires and 
plastics, are removed.  Then the waste is transferred into a 
pyrolytic converter, where it is heated and processed into gas.  
The remaining residue (such as ash) exits the unit.  The gas is 
then cleaned in a venturi separator, before it is stored.  Some 
of the gas (referred to as synthetic gas or "syngas") is used to 
fuel the system, the rest can be used to generate steam or 
electricity.  
¶6 
After meeting with Green Bay's Economic Development 
Department to discuss the permitting process and possible 
locations for its proposed facility, Oneida Seven submitted an 
application to the Plan Commission requesting a conditional use 
permit allowing it to place the facility on Hurlbut Street in 
Green Bay.  The application was supported by a 149-page report 
on the facility.   
¶7 
The 
report 
includes 
proposed 
blueprints 
for 
the 
facility and artist's renderings of its exterior.  It also 
contains photographs of a pyrolytic gasification unit with 
various parts labeled, including its "exhaust stack."  In 
No.  2013AP591   
 
4 
 
addition to these illustrations, the report describes the 
various permits that would be required from the Wisconsin 
Department 
of 
Natural 
Resources 
(DNR) 
and 
the 
requisite 
reporting to and oversight by the DNR of the facility's 
emissions. 
¶8 
The report also contains a 50-page section entitled 
"Emissions."  This section consists of two papers analyzing the 
impact of similar facilities on air quality.  The papers 
identify 
possible 
emissions 
from 
conversion 
technologies, 
explain that they are significantly lower in amount than 
emissions from other types of facilities, and observe that the 
emissions from facilities using conversion technologies fall 
within local, state, federal, and international emission limits.   
The papers are followed by an appendix listing over 100 
facilities 
throughout 
the 
world 
that 
are 
disposing 
and 
converting biomass (principally municipal solid waste) in the 
process of producing energy and/or fuels.   
¶9 
After reviewing Oneida Seven's submissions, the City's 
planning 
staff 
drafted 
a 
report 
to 
the 
Green 
Bay 
Plan 
Commission, recommending that it approve the request for the 
conditional use permit.  The staff observed that the proposed 
use is an appropriate land use for the site, that the site is in 
a heavily industrial area separated from any residential uses by 
Interstate 43, and that there had been no inquiries or 
objections to the request as of the date of the report. 
¶10 The Plan Commission considered the project at an open 
meeting on February 21, 2011.  The CEO of Oneida Seven, Kevin 
No.  2013AP591   
 
5 
 
Cornelius, its engineer, and its project manager presented 
PowerPoint slides accompanied by an audio recording to the 
Commission which explained how the pyrolysis process works.  
After the recording concluded, Cornelius, the engineer, and the 
project manager took questions from the Commission.   
¶11 During the question and answer session, a commissioner 
asked about what was in the gas after the gasification process 
was complete.  Mr. Cornelius responded that the gas was cleaned 
and toxins would be removed from it.  The same commissioner then 
acknowledged the emissions research Oneida Seven had provided 
and questioned the procedures employed by a site in California.  
The engineer responded that California's site chose a system 
based on similar technology.  Like that system, the new system 
Oneida Seven would be using meets all emission requirements. 
¶12 Another 
commissioner 
asked 
if 
there 
were 
other 
communities using this technology.  The engineer and Cornelius 
replied that this would be the first community in Wisconsin to 
use this technology, but other industries use different versions 
of gasification systems.  
¶13 Commissioner 
Wiezbiskie 
asked 
about 
the 
system's 
output.  Mr. Cornelius or the engineer replied that the process 
would create ash that would be tested and reused if test results 
were appropriate.3  Then, after referring to the comprehensive 
                                                 
3 It is unclear from the recording whether it is Cornelius 
or the engineer who is speaking at this point in the meeting.  
The meeting minutes attribute these statements to Cornelius, but 
the parties indicated that the meeting minutes were inaccurate 
at times in identifying the speaker. 
No.  2013AP591   
 
6 
 
emissions 
report 
Oneida 
Seven 
had 
submitted, 
Commissioner 
Wiezbiskie asked about the ash and the syngas that the process 
would produce.  Mr. Cornelius or the engineer responded that the 
emissions would be taken out in the gasification process and the 
syngas would be cleaned.   
¶14 Again referencing the emissions report, Commissioner 
Wiezbiskie sought further clarification about what toxins would 
be in the ash.  Either Cornelius or the engineer responded that 
the toxins would be removed from the ash and that they would be 
the only by-product from the process.  He further explained that 
the emissions would meet EPA and DNR standards. 
¶15 After the question and answer session, the Plan 
Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the 
conditional use permit.  Their recommendation suggested that a 
number of conditions be placed on the permit.  These included 
the requirement that the facility comply with all municipal 
regulations and the requirement that the facility comply with 
federal and state regulations governing air and water quality. 
¶16 The Common Council took up Oneida Seven's request for 
the conditional use permit on March 1, 2011.   Shortly after the 
project was brought to the floor, one of the aldermen clarified 
that if it got approved, the Department of Energy, the DNR, and 
the EPA would also be reviewing the project: "So there's a bunch 
of scientists looking at this, to check for safety.  What we're 
doing here tonight is to say is this the right part of Green Bay 
for something like this to go into.  And that's all."   
No.  2013AP591   
 
7 
 
¶17 The 
Common 
Council 
viewed 
the 
same 
PowerPoint 
presentation 
that 
Oneida 
Seven 
had 
played 
for 
the 
Plan 
Commission.  During the presentation, Cornelius explained the 
gasification process, noting that there would be no emissions 
coming out of one "portion of the system," but there would be 
"emissions from the burner," which meet emission standards.  He 
observed that there would be no smokestacks, adding, "for those 
of us in Green Bay we know that that means."  Mr. Cornelius also 
stated that "gasification technology is not new."  He explained 
how in developing this project, they had gone around the country 
looking at different systems, and ultimately decided on a system 
they had seen in California. 
¶18 Then, Cornelius and the project manager answered 
questions from the Council.  Members of the Council asked about 
tax exemptions, whether the land could be placed into a trust, 
and where Oneida Seven would be obtaining the waste material that 
the plant would process.  One alderman recognized that although 
there would not be stacks, there would be an exhaust output, and 
asked if the exhaust would be clean.  Mr. Cornelius responded 
"yes."  The Council also heard testimony from an independent 
consulting engineer in support of the project.  He gave detailed 
information about the various emissions gasification systems 
produce.  After a lengthy discussion of the Tri-County Agreement 
and tipping fees, the Council voted ten to one to approve the 
No.  2013AP591   
 
8 
 
conditional use permit with the conditions recommended by the 
Plan Commission.4 
¶19 In accordance with the conditions of the permit, Oneida 
Seven applied for the various city, state, and federal permits it 
would need for the project.  The City's Division of Safety and 
Buildings found the plans to be in conformance with applicable 
laws and regulations and issued a building permit for the 
project.  Likewise, the DNR approved Oneida Seven's application 
for an air permit, determining that the project met statutory 
requirements.5  The United States Department of Energy (DOE) also 
reviewed 
the 
project 
and 
determined 
that 
it 
would 
not 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.   
¶20 Despite concerns voiced by some members of the public, 
the DNR granted a final construction permit for the project.  The 
permit indicated that the project would be required to have 
multiple "stacks."6  The permit further required Oneida Seven to 
                                                 
4 The members of the Council voting in favor were: Ald. 
Deneys, Ald. Wiezbiskie, Ald. DeWane, Ald. Theisen, Ald. Kocha, 
Ald. Haefa, Ald. Dorff, Ald Wery, Ald. Zima, and Ald. Danzinger.  
Alderman Nicholson voted against granting the permit. 
5 The record indicates that Oneida Seven paid approximately 
$17,350 in permit fees to the DNR and $11,405 in permit fees to 
the City. 
6 Initially, the permit indicated the stacks would be up to 
60 feet tall.  However, after the City informed Oneida Seven 
that under municipal regulations the stacks could not exceed 35 
feet in height, Oneida Seven submitted a request to the DNR to 
modify the permit so that the highest stack would be 35 feet 
tall, reaching only 3 feet over the roofline of the facility.  
That request was granted. 
No.  2013AP591   
 
9 
 
test emissions for a number of specified pollutants and notify 
the DNR immediately if results exceeded certain levels.  
¶21 Additional members of the public joined those who 
previously had voiced their concerns and complained to the Common 
Council.   Their complaints primarily focused on the stacks and 
emissions referenced in the building permit.  One individual 
observed that the stacks were not on the City plan.  Another 
individual read a letter from the Midwest Environmental Advocates 
which asserted that the conditional use permit should be 
rescinded due to misrepresentations. 
¶22 Thereafter, the Common Council voted to direct the Plan 
Commission to hold a hearing to determine whether the conditional 
use permit had been obtained by misrepresentation.  The published 
notice for the hearing stated its purpose more specifically: "to 
determine if the information submitted and presented to the Plan 
Commission was adequate in order to make an informed decision 
whether or not to advance the Seven Generation conditional use 
permit, the CUP that was recommended." 
¶23  The Plan Commission held the hearing on October 3, 
2012.  It accepted numerous submissions from the public and 
permitted representatives from Oneida Seven, Council members, and 
members of the public to testify.  Oneida Seven submitted various 
documents, 
including 
the 
copies 
of 
the 
DNR 
Environmental 
Analysis, the DNR's response to public comments, the original and 
revised DNR air permits, the DOE Finding of No Significant 
Impact, and the DOE Final Environmental Assessment.   
No.  2013AP591   
 
10 
 
¶24 Mr. Cornelius also spoke on Oneida Seven's behalf.  
Referencing the substantial documentation Oneida Seven had 
provided with its initial application, he testified that there 
had been enough information before the Commission for it to make 
a decision on the conditional use permit.  He denied that he  
said the entire facility would have no emissions and emphasized 
that his earlier comments were regarding certain portions of the 
gasification process.  He asserted that the City was well aware 
that the facility would have emissions.   
¶25 With respect to the comments about stacks in his 
earlier presentation, Cornelius explained that "stacks" are 
different from "smokestacks."  He stated that he had used the 
term smokestack as a layman's term for those stacks associated 
with coal-burning plants that are several hundred feet high and 
twenty to thirty feet wide.  In contrast, the "stacks" at the 
proposed facility are exhaust pipes that will be approximately 26 
inches wide and 35 feet tall (a mere 3 feet over the roofline of 
the building).  The DNR's definition of stack is very broad, 
including even an air vent.   According to Cornelius, they filled 
out the DNR application indicating that the facility would have 
stacks, not smokestacks, as the exhaust pipes fit the DNR's 
definition of the term.  
¶26 Other individuals spoke on behalf of the project as 
well.  An environmentalist testified that the project was a good 
transition strategy to get to zero waste.  Alderman Kocha 
testified that she and other Council members had met with the 
neighborhood association and reviewed the tape of the session 
No.  2013AP591   
 
11 
 
where they had voted to approve the permit.  After reviewing the 
tape, they did not think Oneida Seven had lied.  Similarly, the 
independent consulting engineer testified that the City had not 
been misled.  He had made it clear at the Common Council meeting 
on March 1, 2011, that the facility would have emissions. 
¶27 There were also individuals who spoke against the 
project at the hearing.  They complained that they and the 
commissioners and Council members were told that there would be 
"zero 
pollution, 
zero 
emissions, 
zero 
smoke 
stacks, 
zero 
hazardous materials" and that those were misrepresentations.  
Some indicated they thought the project would be bad for the 
public health, contending that when you burn tires and medical 
waste it is just common sense that "you don't just put all that 
in there and then nothing comes out."  Others indicated the 
project was too rushed.  Still others were just generally against 
it, noting the odor it would produce, complaining about the lack 
of neighborhood notification, and asking other questions about 
the project, such as why the Oneida tribe was not building the 
facility on its own land. 
¶28 After the testimony concluded, the members of the Plan 
Commission debated whether they had received adequate information 
to make an informed decision to recommend approval of the 
conditional use permit.  Several of the comments in this debate 
were directed at concerns the public had raised.   
¶29 In response to the comments about the stacks not 
appearing in the preliminary drawings of the facility, the 
commissioners observed that at the time an applicant is seeking a 
No.  2013AP591   
 
12 
 
conditional use permit, not all of the details have been decided; 
applicants do not want to spend a lot of money on something 
before it has been approved.  Accordingly, the Plan Commission 
does not expect to see finalized architectural drawings at that 
point in time.  As for the citizens' concerns over what the 
proposed facility would be using as feedstock, one commissioner 
pointed out that hazardous waste, infectious waste, tires, 
plastic, and electronics would not be used in the gasification 
process.7  
¶30 The commissioners also recognized that they were not 
experts and neither were most of the individuals who had 
testified that night.  They stressed that they rely on the 
experts at the DNR and the DOE, and that was why they put a 
condition in the conditional use permit requiring Oneida Seven 
to get approvals from those bodies.  The commissioners further 
stated that they had been aware that there would be emissions 
from the facility and they had been aware that the facility 
would have vents.   
¶31 The commissioners unanimously agreed that they had had 
adequate information to reach a decision on the conditional use 
permit, that they had not been misled, and that Oneida Seven had 
not made misrepresentations.  The Commission relayed these 
findings to the Common Council in a report. 
                                                 
7 "Feedstock" refers to the waste that will go into the 
pyrolytic gasification system to be converted into energy. 
No.  2013AP591   
 
13 
 
¶32 The Common Council considered the Plan Commission's 
findings at a meeting on October 16, 2012.  Alderman Wiezbiskie 
moved for the Council to approve the decision of the Plan 
Commission.  The motion did not pass.  Then, Alderman Sladek 
moved to rescind the conditional use permit.  He provided four 
bases for his motion.  First, he asserted Cornelius had made 
false statements in response to questions about the project: 
Number one, the chief executive officer of Seven 
Generations 
Corporation, 
Kevin 
Cornelius, 
made 
untruthful statements before the city governmental 
bodies while seeking the conditional use permit for 
the gasification project.  These false statements were 
made in response to questions or concerns related to 
the public safety and health aspects of the project 
and the project's impact on the city's environment.  
Second, Alderman Sladek determined that Cornelius's untruthful 
statements were clear and left no impression of doubt or 
uncertainty: 
Number two, the statements made by Kevin Cornelius 
were 
plain 
spoken 
statements, 
they 
contained 
no 
equivocation, they left no impression of doubt or 
uncertainty, his words were intended to influence the 
actions of the bodies he was addressing.   
Third, Alderman Sladek maintained that Cornelius knew his 
statements were false: 
Number three, Kevin Cornelius knew his statements were 
false, he was not a new, or uninformed member of the 
Seven Generations Organization, he was the chief 
executive officer, and had been involved throughout 
the 
project's 
development, 
and 
was 
therefore 
knowledgeable about the pilot work, the process and 
the equipment, and the materials that would be used, 
the nature of the byproducts and chemicals released.   
He 
understood 
the 
role 
that 
he 
accepted 
as 
a 
spokesperson for seven generations for that project 
No.  2013AP591   
 
14 
 
and he had every opportunity to say 'I don't know' or 
'I can't answer that' when the questions were put to 
him.  
Alderman Sladek's fourth basis for the motion was that he 
believed that Cornelius's untruthful statements were on matters 
of high importance: 
Number four, the subject matter of the questions put 
to Kevin Cornelius was of very high importance. On the 
subject of emissions, the documents submitted by Seven 
Generations in applying for the permit were references 
to other plants using a variety of technologies, 
equipment, 
and 
feedstock. 
Commissioners 
were 
rightfully 
interested 
in 
this 
project, 
not 
what 
happened at other projects. That's why they asked the 
questions 
they 
did. 
And 
when 
they 
asked 
about 
emission, and chemicals, and hazardous materials at 
this 
project, 
Kevin 
Cornelius 
provided 
false 
information.   
The Mayor called for a vote on the motion to rescind the 
conditional use permit "for the reasons [Sladek] stated."  The 
motion passed by a vote of seven to five.8   
¶33 Oneida Seven filed for an administrative appeal under 
Wis. Stat. §§ 68.08, 68.10 and 68.11, requesting review and a 
                                                 
8 There was a significant change in the makeup of the Common 
Council between the time the Council initially approved the 
conditional use permit and the time that the Council voted for 
rescission.  The Council members who voted to rescind the 
conditional use permit were: Ald. Boyce, Ald. Burnette, Ald. 
(Tim) Dewane, Ald. (Tom) DeWane, Ald. Nicholson, Ald. Sladek, 
and Ald. Steuer.  Five of these individuals were new members of 
the Council.  The members who voted against rescinding the 
conditional use permit were: Ald. Danzinger, Ald. Kocha, Ald. 
Moore, Ald. Warner, and Ald. Wiezbiskie.  Two of these 
individuals were new members.  Only one who had originally voted 
to grant the conditional use permit changed his vote to rescind 
it. 
No.  2013AP591   
 
15 
 
hearing.  The City denied the request, determining that the 
hearings before the Plan Commission and the Common Council 
substantially 
complied 
with 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 
68.11 
and 
met 
constitutional standards and protections. 
¶34 Next, Oneida Seven sought certiorari review from the 
circuit court.  It asserted that the City's decision to rescind 
its conditional use permit was arbitrary and not supported by 
substantial evidence.  The circuit court rejected Oneida Seven's 
arguments.   
¶35 On appeal, Oneida Seven again argued that the City's 
decision to rescind its conditional use permit was arbitrary and 
not supported by substantial evidence.9  In response, the City 
contended that Oneida Seven had made multiple misrepresentations 
that supported its decision to rescind the conditional use 
permit, including: that the facility would have no emissions, 
that its char could be reused, that the facility would not have 
smokestacks, and that the process was not new technology. 
¶36 Describing 
the 
City's 
actions 
as 
"[f]ickle 
and 
inconstant," the court of appeals agreed with Oneida Seven.  
                                                 
9 Oneida Seven also argued that the City could not revoke 
the conditional use permit because Oneida Seven had obtained a 
vested right to it.  The court of appeals did not address this 
argument because it ruled in favor of Oneida Seven on other 
grounds.  Oneida Seven Generations Corp, No. 2013AP591, ¶18 n.4.  
Oneida Seven made a similar argument regarding vested rights to 
this court.  The City responded that Oneida Seven could not have 
gained vested rights in the permit because it was approved based 
on misrepresentations.  Like the court of appeals, we need not 
address these arguments because the substantial evidence issue 
is determinative. 
No.  2013AP591   
 
16 
 
Oneida Seven Generations Corp. v. City of Green Bay, No. 
2013AP591, unpublished slip op., ¶22 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 
2014).  First, the court determined that the Common Council had 
failed to give the basis for the City's decision to revoke the 
permit 
in 
that 
it 
did 
not 
identify 
the 
alleged 
misrepresentations Cornelius made.  Id., ¶¶24-27.  According to 
the court of appeals, this failure alone makes the City's action 
appear to be the product of "unconsidered, wilful or irrational 
choice, and not the result of the 'sifting and winnowing 
process.'"  Id., ¶27 (quoting Robertson Transp. Co. v. PSC, 39 
Wis. 2d 653, 661, 159 N.W.2d 636 (1968)). 
¶37 Next, 
the 
court 
considered 
the 
allegedly 
false 
statements identified in the City's brief.  It determined that 
none 
of 
them 
constituted 
substantial 
evidence 
of 
misrepresentation.  Id., ¶29.  It explained that the City's 
assertion that there were misrepresentations that the facility 
would be a closed system, which would produce no chemicals or 
hazardous materials, was untenable because the statements were 
all made in response to questions about the pyrolysis process, 
not the facility as a whole.  Id., ¶31.  
¶38 Further, the court of appeals concluded that the 
statement that the char byproduct could be reused was not false.  
Id., ¶32.   It observed that the DNR's environmental analysis 
states that the char could be reused as a beneficial product 
subject to approval, and suggested that it "may be suitable for 
[] use as concrete additives, flowable fill material, and 
No.  2013AP591   
 
17 
 
aggregate for sub-base of roads and stabilization for landfill 
cover if it meets certain waste characteristics."  Id. 
¶39 In regards to the "no smokestacks" comment, the court 
acknowledged that the final design of the facility includes 
vents that are just a few feet above the building's roof and 
none 
of 
Oneida 
Seven's 
statements 
could 
reasonably 
be 
interpreted as a promise that the facility would have no stacks 
or vents.  Id., ¶¶35-37.   
¶40 Lastly, the court concluded that the statements that 
pyrolysis 
and 
gasification 
were 
not 
new 
technology 
were 
accurate.  Id., ¶¶38-39.  The court based this conclusion on the 
DOE report, which states that pyrolysis and gasification of 
municipal solid waste is used all over the world and includes a 
list of 27 facilities worldwide that are currently using or 
planning to use municipal solid waste as the primary feedstock.  
Id., ¶39.  Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed the 
circuit court. 
II 
¶41 We are asked to consider whether the City's decision 
to rescind Oneida Seven's conditional use permit was supported 
by substantial evidence.  There is a presumption that the City's 
decision is valid.  Edward Kraemer & Sons v. Sauk Cnty. Bd. of 
Adjustment, 183 Wis. 2d 1, 8, 515 N.W.2d 256 (1994).  On 
certiorari review, our inquiry is limited to: "(1) whether the 
municipality kept within its jurisdiction; (2) whether it 
proceeded on a correct theory of law; (3) whether its action was 
arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable and represented its will 
No.  2013AP591   
 
18 
 
and not its judgment; and (4) whether the evidence was such that 
it 
might 
reasonably 
make 
the 
order 
or 
determination 
in 
question."  Ottman v. Town of Primrose, 2011 WI 18, ¶35, 332 
Wis. 2d 3, 796 N.W.2d 411 (internal citations omitted).   
¶42 Our focus is on the fourth inquiry.  We do not review 
the judgment or findings of the circuit court but rather we 
review the record of the City to whom certiorari is directed.  
State ex rel. Harris v. Annuity & Pension Board, 87 Wis. 2d 646, 
651, 275 N.W.2d 668 (1979); see also Edward Kraemer & Sons, 183 
Wis. 2d at 8 (observing that this court reviews the record 
before the Board).   
 
III 
 
¶43 We begin with an overview of the substantial evidence 
standard. 
 
"'Substantial 
evidence' 
is 
evidence 
of 
such 
convincing power that reasonable persons could reach the same 
decision as the board."  Clark v. Waupaca County Bd. of 
Adjustment, 186 Wis. 2d 300, 304, 519 N.W.2d 782 (Ct. App. 
1994); see also Sills v. Walworth County Land Mgmt. Cmte., 2002 
WI App 111, ¶11, 254 Wis. 2d 538, 648 N.W.2d 878 ("Substantial 
evidence means credible, relevant and probative evidence upon 
which reasonable persons could rely to reach a decision.").   
¶44 Although 
substantial 
evidence 
is 
less 
than 
a 
preponderance of the evidence, Smith v. City of Milwaukee, 2014 
WI App 95, ¶22, 356 Wis. 2d 779, 854 N.W.2d 857, it is "more 
than 'a mere scintilla' of evidence and more than 'conjecture 
and speculation.'"  Gehin v. Wis. Group Ins. Bd., 2005 WI 16, 
¶48, 278 Wis. 2d 111, 692 N.W.2d 572.  Further, "mere 
No.  2013AP591   
 
19 
 
uncorroborated hearsay . . . does not constitute substantial 
evidence."  Id., ¶53 (internal citations omitted); see also 
Williams v. Hous. Auth. of Milwaukee, 2010 WI App 14, ¶19, 323 
Wis. 2d 179, 779 N.W.2d 185 (determining that agency decision 
based solely on uncorroborated hearsay could not stand).  We 
acknowledge, however, that the weight to accord the evidence 
lies within the discretion of the municipality.  Sills, 254 Wis. 
2d 538, ¶11. 
¶45 In determining whether the substantial evidence test 
is met, a court conducting a certiorari review should "tak[e] 
into account all the evidence in the record." State ex rel. 
Palleon v. Musolf, 120 Wis. 2d 545, 549, 356 N.W.2d 487 (1984).  
In other words, a reviewing court should consider the context of 
the 
evidence 
when 
determining 
whether 
it 
supports 
a 
municipality's action.  See Copland v. Wisconsin Dep't of 
Taxation, 16 Wis. 2d 543, 554, 114 N.W.2d 858 (1962). 
¶46 This premise is illustrated by Wagner v. Industrial 
Comm'n, 273 Wis. 553, 79 N.W.2d 264 (1956).  There, the court 
considered whether the Industrial Commission's determination 
that an employee did not sustain a permanent total disability 
was supported by the record.  In upholding the Commission's 
determination, 
the 
circuit 
court 
had 
relied 
on 
doctors' 
statements that "the man's 'condition continued some time into 
August of 1952'; that his hands were 'normal' at that time . . . 
[and] that the man was 'completely recovered' by August of 
1952."  Id. at 564.   
No.  2013AP591   
 
20 
 
¶47 On appeal, the Supreme Court determined that these 
statements "were merely isolated statements taken out of context 
which are completely explained by other testimony given by these 
same physicians."  Id. at 565.  It observed that "[t]he trial 
court completely overlooked the testimony that all three of 
these doctors considered that [the employee's] skin had become 
sensitized 
due 
to 
his 
employment" 
and 
that 
the 
doctors 
"testified that [the employee] should never again return to his 
former employment."  Id. at 564.  Thus, based on the record as a 
whole, the court determined that the Commission's decision was 
not supported by the evidence.  Id. at 565. 
¶48 Having explained the substantial evidence standard, we 
turn now to the City's decision.  Although the City did not 
issue 
a 
formal 
written 
decision, 
municipal 
administrative 
decisions need not be in writing.  See State ex rel. Harris v. 
Annuity & Pension Bd., 87 Wis. 2d 646, 660, 275 N.W.2d 668 
(1979) (the section of the state Administrative Procedure Act 
requiring administrative decisions to be in writing applied only 
to hearings of state agencies).  "[A] written decision is not 
required as long as [the City's] reasoning is clear from the 
transcript of the proceedings."  Lamar Cent. Outdoor, Inc. v. 
Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2005 WI 117, ¶31, 284 Wis. 2d 1, 700 
N.W.2d 87.   
¶49 Additionally, a detailed or explicit explanation of 
the City's reasoning is not necessary.  The decision need only 
contain enough information for the reviewing court to discern 
the basis of the City's decision.  State ex rel. Harris, 87 Wis. 
No.  2013AP591   
 
21 
 
2d 646, 661; see also Valadzic v. Briggs & Stratton Corp., 92 
Wis. 2d 583, 591, 286 N.W.2d 540 (1979) ("A general finding by 
the Department implies all facts necessary to support it. A 
finding not explicitly made may be inferred from other properly 
made findings and from findings which the Department failed to 
make, if there is evidence (or inferences which can be drawn 
from the evidence) which would support such findings."). 
¶50 In this case, the basis of the City's decision to 
revoke the conditional use permit can be discerned from the 
recording of the Common Council's October 16, 2012 meeting and 
the recording of the February 21, 2011 Plan Commission meeting.  
The motion to rescind the conditional use permit was explicitly 
based on the reasons provided by Alderman Sladek: 1) Cornelius 
made untruthful statements to city governmental bodies in 
response to questions related to the public safety and health 
aspects of the project and the project's impact on the city's 
environment; 2) those statements were clear and left no 
impression of doubt or uncertainty; 3) Cornelius knew his 
statements were false; and 4) the subject matter of the 
questions was of high importance.   
¶51 Although the Common Council did not quote the specific 
statements that it determined were untruthful, Alderman Sladek's 
descriptions are sufficient to identify them.  He described them 
as Cornelius's responses "to questions or concerns related to 
the public safety and health aspects of the project and the 
project's 
impact 
on 
the 
city's 
environment" 
and, 
more 
specifically, Cornelius's responses to commissioners "when they 
No.  2013AP591   
 
22 
 
asked about emission, and chemicals, and hazardous materials at 
this project."10   
¶52 It appears that the intentional misrepresentations to 
which Alderman Sladek was referring were Cornelius's statements 
at the February 21, 2011 Plan Commission meeting.  This 
inference is supported by the fact that when the Common Council 
referred the concerns about the conditional use permit to the 
Plan Commission for a hearing, the issue was "whether the 
information submitted and presented to the Plan Commission was 
adequate for it to make an informed decision whether or not to 
advance the [CUP] that was recommended."  Consistent with that 
inference, 
in 
their 
arguments 
over 
whether 
there 
were 
misrepresentations, the parties referred solely to statements 
made during the February 21, 2011, hearing before the Plan 
Commission.11   
                                                 
10 Admittedly, 
it 
is 
a 
close 
call 
whether 
Sladek's 
statements are sufficient.  Although the court of appeals 
determined otherwise, we conclude that Sladek's description of 
the alleged misrepresentations made by Cornelius is sufficient 
because we can discern which statements Sladek was referencing 
by closely examining the record.  Accordingly, we need not 
address the City's arguments that the court of appeals should 
have remanded the case for a fuller explanation of its decision. 
11 Contrary to the dissent's assertion, we are not reviewing 
the Plan Commission's decision.  Our review is focused on the 
decision of the Common Council.  As discussed above, the Common 
Counsel 
determined 
that 
Cornelius 
intentionally 
made 
misrepresentations to the Plan Commission.  Thus, an analysis of 
whether the Common Council had a substantial basis for that 
determination necessarily includes what statements were made to 
the Plan Commission and what, if any, information in the record 
shows that those statements were false. 
No.  2013AP591   
 
23 
 
¶53 Accordingly, we discern which statements the Common 
Council determined were intentional  misrepresentations by 
looking at the questions the Plan Commission posed to Cornelius 
and his responses at the February 21, 2011 Plan Commission 
meeting. 
 
The 
parties 
group 
the 
statements 
into 
three 
categories: statements that the facility will have no emissions 
or hazardous materials, statements that there will be no stacks, 
and statements that this is not new technology.12  We address 
each category in turn, assessing whether there is substantial 
evidence 
that 
the 
statements 
were 
misrepresentations 
by 
Cornelius made with the intent to mislead the City. 
¶54 Addressing emissions and hazardous materials, the 
first question from the commissioners on this topic asked what 
would be left over once the gasification process was complete: 
                                                 
12 We observe that the City's brief relies solely on the 
meeting minutes from the Plan Commission's February 21, 2011, 
meeting to identify the alleged misrepresentations.  However, as 
discussed above, our analysis takes into account all of the 
evidence.  Here, Cornelius's statements were recorded.  The 
recording is more informative of his actual statements than are 
the meeting minutes, which provide only a summary.  Thus, 
contrary to the City, we rely on the actual statements made by 
Cornelius, rather than the summary of those statements in the 
minutes.   
 
Uncovering the actual statements required the court to 
review the hours of audio-recording in the record.  Counsel are 
reminded that it is incumbent upon them to provide the court 
with a sufficient record of the proceedings that we are to 
review.  In this case, that should have included transcripts of 
the proceedings at issue.  However, no transcripts of the 
February 21, 2011 Plan Commission Hearing, the March 1, 2011 
Common Council meeting, or the October 16, 2012 Common Council 
meeting were provided.   
No.  2013AP591   
 
24 
 
"there seems to be some concern about some of the——once the 
gasification is complete, about some of the——some hazardous 
materials being left over, and I wondered if you would address 
that."   
¶55  Mr. Cornelius's response was limited to what would be 
in the syngas after the gasification process was complete and 
what would be in the ash: "Um, there is no hazardous material.  
What happens is there is some ash that comes out of the deposit—
—the system is closed, so there is no oxygen, so once it's 
baked, all the gas is taken out and it's run through what's 
called a venturi scrubber, so it takes out any kind of harmful 
toxin that would be, that might be in the gas.  . . .  the ash 
that comes out is inert and can be dumped in a landfill or it 
can be dumped and mixed with cement as a road base."   
¶56  The commissioner followed-up on his initial question, 
asking if the emissions identified in the report would be in the 
ash: "In the report, under emissions, you refer to some 
particulate matter, also hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxide, 
sulfur dioxide, mercuries and dioxins.  Now this is all in your 
ash?"  Either Cornelius or the engineer responded that chemicals 
are not in the ash: "That's all taken out in the process."   The 
commissioner then asked if the chemicals would be in the syngas 
that the facility produces:  "And it's not in the syngas?"  Mr. 
Cornelius or the engineer responded "No, it's all scrubbed out." 
¶57 The commissioner later asked again whether certain 
substances identified in the report would be in the ash: "I 
guess, there's some particulate but the rest is dioxins and 
No.  2013AP591   
 
25 
 
mercuries and all that.  Where is that stuff, is it in the ash, 
when it's done?"   
¶58 Mr. Cornelius or the engineer reiterated that those 
substances are not in the ash and stated that those are the only 
byproducts from the process: "It's actually, it gets taken out, 
that's the only byproduct we have.  It's through the scrubbers 
and the filters."  Mr. Cornelius or the engineer further stated 
that the ash, if tested appropriately, could go into organic 
farming or be used in asphalt: "they've been tested, can 
actually go right into [] for organic farming.  I can sell it 
right to asphalt companies, they use that in asphalt."  
¶59 Next, the commissioner asked whether at this point in 
the gasification process the substances identified are removed: 
"So all this stuff is now removed?"  Either Cornelius or the 
engineer responded that at this point the substances would be 
removed and further informed the commissioner that studies of 
other facilities had been unable to find the substances:  
 
If there's anything present. . . . [T]here was a study 
done in this area in southern [sic] municipal waste.  
And in, that even states they could not find mercury, 
could not find a lot of these things that's not 
present.  But in these reports, it's just stating from 
other sources that these are possible, but in this 
plant that there will be none.   
After again agreeing with the commissioner's statement that 
there would be no dioxins or mercury in the ash, Cornelius added 
that "[t]he emissions that will be going out will be acceptable.  
And there won't be any of the chemicals that you mentioned."   
No.  2013AP591   
 
26 
 
¶60 Although numerous individuals at the public hearing 
accused Cornelius of stating that the facility itself would have 
no emissions or hazardous substances, and that the entire 
facility was a closed-loop system, none of these accusations are 
supported by the record.  As illustrated above, the context of 
Cornelius's 
statements 
reveals 
that 
his 
statements 
about 
emissions, hazardous materials, and the system being closed were 
not about the facility as a whole.  Rather, his statements were 
in response to specific questions about what would be in the 
syngas, what would be in the ash, and what would be present and 
happening at specific phases of the process.   
¶61 In addition to a lack of any statement that the 
facility would have no emissions, the record reveals that 
Cornelius actually stated that there would be emissions in 
amounts that would meet EPA and DNR standards.  Specifically, he 
stated that "it will always be under the EPA and DNR standards" 
and that "the emissions that will be going out will be 
acceptable." 
¶62 The fact that there would be emissions from the 
facility was also conveyed to Commission members in Oneida 
Seven's written submission.  In an approximately 50-page section 
titled "Emissions," the submission describes in detail possible 
emissions and what has occurred at other plants using pyrolysis 
and gasification technology. It states that "[t]he output 
products of pyrolysis and gasification reactors can contain a 
variety of potential process and air pollutants that must be 
controlled prior to discharge into ambient air.  These include 
No.  2013AP591   
 
27 
 
particulate matter (PM), aerosols or tars, oxides of nitrogen 
(NOx), oxides of sulfur (SOx), dioxins and furans, hydrocarbon 
(HC) gases, multiple metals, and carbon monoxide (CO)."   
¶63 Commission 
members 
specifically 
acknowledged 
the 
emissions section of Oneida Seven's submission during the 
February 21, 2011 hearing, indicating that they were well aware 
of it.  For example, one commissioner stated: "I appreciate very 
much the submission of a number of studies that are reassuring 
that this in fact is less polluting than other processes for 
taking care of waste, including landfill itself." Another 
stated: "You go into the emissions section——oh, and let me also 
thank you for this comprehensive report that you gave to us."    
¶64 The Commission further indicated its awareness that 
the 
facility 
would 
have 
emissions 
by 
including 
in 
the 
conditional use permit a requirement that the facility comply 
with "Federal and State regulations and standards related to the 
proposed use including air and water quality."  (Notably absent 
from the conditional use permit was a requirement that the 
facility have no emissions.) Consistent with this record, the 
report of the Plan Commission acknowledged that it had been 
aware that the project would have emissions. 
¶65 There is no indication in the record that the 
statements Cornelius actually made (that the scrubbers remove 
the harmful toxins from the syngas and that the dioxins and 
mercury would not be in the ash, which could be reused for 
beneficial purposes) were false.  Opponents of the project who 
testified at the October 2, 2012 hearing referred to the DNR 
No.  2013AP591   
 
28 
 
permit as support for their assertions that Cornelius lied.  
However, that permit provides no support for their position.  It 
identifies "facility-wide" potential emissions, it does not 
state that there would be toxins in the syngas or dioxins or 
mercury in the ash.   
¶66 Contrary to the allegations, the documents from the 
DNR that are in the record support Cornelius's statement that 
the venturi scrubber would remove toxins from the syngas.  A 
summary from a DNR hearing on the proposed facility states that 
the syngas will be cleaned: "The Department has confirmed that 
the engineering design for the proposed facility is that all 
syngas generated by the retort ovens, including startup and 
shutdown, will pass through the gas cleaning system."  The 
summary then explains that the DNR will require compliance with 
that process: "To ensure that this is how the proposed facility 
will be built, the permit has been amended to include a 
requirement that the flare only combust cleaned syngas." 
¶67  Likewise, the DNR Pollution Control Permit provides 
that "[a]ll syngas generated by the retort ovens, including 
during startup, shutdown or malfunction, shall pass through a 
gas conditioning system to remove particulates, condensable 
organics, moisture, sulfur compounds and other contaminants."   
¶68 The Department of Energy made similar statements as 
part of its review.  For example, the DOE Final Environmental 
Assessment explains that "[g]ases pulled from the pyrolytic 
converter 
would 
first 
go 
through 
a 
venturi 
scrubber 
or 
separator.  This step washes out carbon particles that may have 
No.  2013AP591   
 
29 
 
traveled with the gas from the converter and removes some of the 
condensable gases . . . From the venturi scrubber, the gas would 
go through a condenser to remove the rest of the condensable 
gases."  The Final Environmental Assessment further confirms 
that "syngas is scrubbed of contaminants prior to combustion and 
discharge." 
¶69 Mr. Cornelius's statements about the ash being put to 
beneficial uses are also supported by the DNR and DOE materials.  
The summary of the DNR hearing indicates the possibility that 
the ash could be reused, depending on how it tests.  It states: 
"Oneida Energy's disposal options [for the char/ash] include: 
non-hazardous waste to an approved landfill, hazardous waste to 
an out-of-state landfill, and beneficial use to a purchaser.  
All these options are based on char test results."   
¶70 Likewise, the DOE Finding of No Significant Impact 
indicates that "[p]rovided the by-products do not exceed 
thresholds of pollutants, they could be used for beneficial 
purposes." 
 
The 
DOE 
Final 
Environmental 
Assessment 
also 
indicates that "depending on the specific constituent in the 
waste product, it is expected that at least a portion of the 
waste stream could be usable as a concrete additive or as road 
bed material."  In sum, we could not find evidence in the record 
on which a reasonable person could rely to find that Cornelius's 
statements 
about 
emissions 
and 
hazardous 
materials 
were 
misrepresentations.  
¶71 We turn now to the second category of alleged 
misrepresentations: the statements Cornelius made about stacks.  
No.  2013AP591   
 
30 
 
The first reference to smokestacks was included in the recorded 
presentation Cornelius played for the Plan Commission during the 
February 21, 2011 hearing.  It stated: "As you can see, there 
are no smokestacks such as those associated with coal powered 
power plants."  Then, during the question and answer portion of 
the hearing, in response to Alderman Wiezbiskie's question "No 
smokestack?" either Cornelius or the engineer replied "No."  
Opponents of the facility asserted that this statement was a lie 
because the DNR permit indicated that the project would have 
"stacks." 
¶72 Again, we focus on context.  In terms of the DNR 
permit, it is important to acknowledge that the DNR defines 
"stack" very broadly, as "any device or opening designed or used 
to emit air contaminants to the ambient air."  Wis. Admin Code 
NR § 400.02(147).13  There is no indication that Cornelius's use 
of the term smokestack during his public presentation to the 
Plan Commission was a reference to the technical term "stack" as 
defined by the DNR.   
¶73 To the contrary, it appears that Cornelius's statement 
was reiterating the statement made in the recorded presentation.  
It had used the term smokestacks as a reference to the stacks 
                                                 
13 Alderman Wizbiskie explained that "a stack in our 
nomenclature basically could be a vent off of a plumbing grid.  
In other words, you have a vent venting the plumbing piping.  A 
stack could be what we have in our homes.  I have a stack that 
comes off my kitchen hood and exhaust to the outside.  I have a 
stack in my bathroom that vents out through the wall."  
 
No.  2013AP591   
 
31 
 
present at the coal powered power plants.  As Cornelius 
explained, those stacks are several hundred feet high and twenty 
to thirty feet wide.  In contrast, the "stacks" at the proposed 
facility are exhaust pipes that will be approximately 26 inches 
wide and 35 feet tall, rising only 3 feet above the roofline of 
the facility.14  Even the commissioners declared that they were 
aware the facility would have such vents.   
¶74 If the City had not wanted such vents, it could have 
added that as one of the conditions to the conditional use 
permit.  Instead, it conditioned the permit on compliance with 
municipal regulations, which permit stacks up to 35 feet above 
ground level. Given this context, it would be unreasonable to 
conclude that Cornelius's statement that there would be no 
smokestacks was an intentional misrepresentation. 
¶75 Lastly, we turn to the third category of alleged 
misrepresentations: statements that this is not new technology.  
At the Plan Commission hearing on February 21, 2011, the 
recorded presentation stated that "this technology is not new, 
nor is it experimental."  Then, during the question and answer 
session, one commissioner asked "are any other local communities 
                                                 
14 We acknowledge that there were also some arguments that 
the initial drawings of the facility were misleading as they did 
not show the stacks.  However, this is not one of the 
misrepresentations on which the Common Council based its 
decision.  Its decision clearly referred to statements made by 
Cornelius in response to questions about the facility. In any 
event, the drawings were preliminary.  The commissioners stated 
that they were aware the drawings were preliminary, that they 
"are used to people coming in with unfinished sketches." 
   
No.  2013AP591   
 
32 
 
using this technology?" Mr. Cornelius responded that "in the 
state of Wisconsin, we'd probably be the first one."  He further 
noted that "there are other biogas plants." 
¶76  There is nothing in the record to suggest that either 
of Cornelius's limited statements was incorrect.  It is 
undisputed that there is not another facility in Wisconsin 
converting municipal solid waste into energy via a pyrolytic 
gasification system.  Similarly, no one refutes Cornelius' 
statement that there are asserts that there are other biogas 
plants.  Indeed, several are identified in Oneida Seven's 
submission.   
¶77 Consistent 
with 
that 
submission, 
the 
DOE 
report 
acknowledges 
that 
"[t]he 
pyrolysis 
and 
gasification 
of 
[municipal solid waste] is used all over the world."  It 
likewise 
acknowledges 
that 
"[t]oday 
there 
are 
numerous 
successful plants in operation around the world and in the 
United States that utilize various forms of pyrolysis to process 
different resources to produce energy."  It specifically points 
to a facility in California that used municipal solid waste as 
its feedstock. 
¶78 Although members of the public testified that they 
could not find other facilities using this exact technology on 
municipal solid waste that were operating on a commercial scale, 
Cornelius did not tell the Plan Commission that such a facility 
existed.  Given this context, it would be unreasonable to 
conclude that Cornelius's statements about the technology the 
facility would use were intentional misrepresentations.  
No.  2013AP591   
 
33 
 
¶79 The above review reveals that the City's decision to 
rescind the conditional use permit was not supported by 
substantial evidence.  Despite the City's claim that Cornelius 
made intentional misrepresentations to government entities in 
response "to questions or concerns related to the public safety 
and health aspects of the project and the project's impact on 
the 
city's 
environment," 
we 
could 
find 
no 
such 
misrepresentations in the record.  Thus, Oneida Seven has 
successfully rebutted the presumption that the City's decision 
was valid. 
¶80 Our view of the record is buttressed by the Plan 
Commission's findings regarding Cornelius's statements.  We 
acknowledge that the Common Council is not required to adopt 
those findings.  However, where the question is whether the Plan 
Commission was misled and the Plan Commission unanimously finds 
that it was not, we have difficulty reaching another conclusion. 
IV 
¶81 In sum, we conclude that the City's decision to 
rescind the conditional use permit was not based on substantial 
evidence.  In conducting a certiorari review to determine 
whether there was substantial evidence to support a decision, we 
consider the evidence in context.   Considering the context, we 
determine that based on the evidence presented, the City could 
not reasonably conclude that the statements by Oneida Seven's 
representative to the City government regarding the proposed 
facility's emissions and hazardous materials, its stacks, and 
No.  2013AP591   
 
34 
 
its technology were misrepresentations.  Accordingly, we affirm 
the court of appeals. 
By the Court.— The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
 
 
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
1 
 
 
¶82 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J. (dissenting).   The 
Common 
Council 
of 
the 
City 
of 
Green 
Bay 
found 
that 
representatives 
of 
Oneida 
Seven 
Generations 
Corporation 
misrepresented material facts to the Common Council when it 
obtained a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 
biomass gasification facility.  On certiorari review, the Common 
Council's factual findings are sustained if any reasonable view 
of the evidence supports them.  Kapischke v. Cnty. of Walworth, 
226 Wis. 2d 320, 328, 595 N.W.2d 42 (Ct. App. 1999).  The 
majority opinion refuses to follow this and other long-
established legal principles that apply to certiorari review of 
a common council decision and thereby errs.   
¶83 In this regard, the majority opinion did not accord 
the Common Council's decision the presumption of correctness and 
validity that the law requires, Driehaus v. Walworth Cnty., 2009 
WI App 63, ¶13, 317 Wis. 2d 734, 767 N.W.2d 343.  Instead, the 
majority opinion substituted its view of the evidence for that 
of the Common Council, contrary to law, Clark v. Waupaca Cnty. 
Bd. of Adjustment, 186 Wis. 2d 300, 305, 519 N.W.2d 782 (Ct. 
App. 1994).  
¶84 I conclude Oneida Seven has failed to meet its burden 
under certiorari review because a reasonable view of the 
presentations made March 1, 2011, when Oneida Seven obtained the 
conditional use permit, supports the Common Council's finding 
that it was misled.  Material misrepresentations were made to 
the Common Council in regard to emissions during operation of 
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
2 
 
the gasification facility and that such a facility was not 
experimental because solid municipal waste was being used as the 
feedstock in other gasification facilities.1  Therefore, I 
conclude that substantial evidence supports the Common Council's 
decision to rescind the conditional use permit.  Accordingly, I 
would reverse the court of appeals decision, affirm the circuit 
court's 
affirmance 
of 
the 
Common 
Council 
decision, 
and 
respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.    
I.  BACKGROUND 
¶85 This 
review 
focuses 
on 
the 
Common 
Council's 
October 16, 2012 rescission of the conditional use permit 
earlier granted to Oneida Seven because the Common Council found 
that Oneida Seven's representatives had misrepresented material 
facts to the Common Council when obtaining the conditional use 
permit.  The Common Council found that the misrepresentations 
raised public health, safety and general welfare concerns in 
regard to hazardous emissions produced at the facility and in 
                                                 
1 Feedstock 
is 
defined 
as 
"any 
renewable, 
biological 
material that can be used directly as a fuel, or converted to 
another form of fuel or energy product."  Biomass Feedstocks,  
Office 
of 
Energy 
Efficiency 
& 
Renewable 
Energy, 
www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/biomass-feedstocks 
(last 
visited 
March 11, 2015).  
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
3 
 
regard to the experimental nature of a pyrolytic gasification 
facility that would convert municipal solid waste into syngas.2   
¶86 In advance of its March 1, 2011 meeting with the 
Common Council, Oneida Seven submitted 149 pages of material 
that discussed various waste-to-energy methods and also provided 
pictorial representations of the facility it was proposing.  
Oneida Seven's representatives previously had met with the City 
of Green Bay's Plan Commission to explain the project.   
¶87 At the Common Council meeting on March 1, 2011, Oneida 
Seven's CEO, Kevin Cornelius, and the project manager, Peter 
King, made representations in support of the conditional use 
permit.  During those presentations when questioned about 
emissions, Cornelius said, "there are no smoke stacks in it.  
For those of us here in Green Bay we know what that means."  
This was an important representation because smoke stacks are 
used to disburse emissions that are generated by power plants 
and other businesses.3  Cornelius's statement was consistent with 
the drawings and the power point presentation given to the 
                                                 
2 Gasification is the process of "convert[ing] a solid or 
liquid product from coal, petroleum residue, biomass, or other 
materials which are recovered for their energy or feedstock 
value into a synthesis gas [commonly referred to as syngas] 
composed primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen for direct 
use or subsequent chemical or physical conversion."  26 U.S.C. 
§ 48B(c)(2). 
3 Questions About Your Community:  Power Plant/Industry 
Smoke Stack Emissions, United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, 
www.epa.gov/region1/communities/powerplant.html 
(last 
visited March 11, 2015). 
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
4 
 
Common Council on March 1, which showed no stacks for the 
proposed facility.   
¶88 Cornelius 
also 
represented 
that 
the 
proposed 
gasification facility was not based on new or experimental 
technology.  He said that a system such as was being proposed 
for Green Bay was operational in California.  He explained that 
he "looked at it, the fact that it was operating in California, 
that it was permitted there.  When we saw it, we knew it was a 
good system."   
II.  DISCUSSION 
A.  Standard of Review 
¶89 This case presents to us on certiorari review of the 
Common Council's decision to rescind a conditional use permit it 
previously issued.  We review the Common Council's decision, not 
those of courts that have considered the Common Council's 
decision.  Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. v. Dane Cnty. Bd. 
of Adjustment, 2000 WI App 211, ¶10, 238 Wis. 2d 810, 618 N.W.2d 
537.  Upon certiorari review, we are limited to deciding whether 
the 
Common 
Council 
"kept 
within 
its 
jurisdiction, 
acted 
according to law, acted arbitrarily or unreasonably, and whether 
the evidence was such that the [Common Council] might reasonably 
make the order or determination it made."  Cohn v. Town of 
Randall, 2001 WI App 176, ¶25, 247 Wis. 2d 118, 633 N.W.2d 674.   
¶90 In regard to the Common Council's factual findings, we 
will not disturb them if any reasonable view of the evidence 
supports them.  Kapischke, 226 Wis. 2d at 328.  In our review, 
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
5 
 
we accord the Common Council's decision a presumption of 
correctness and validity.  Driehaus, 317 Wis. 2d 734, ¶13.    
B.  Certiorari Review 
¶91 Before us, Oneida Seven argues only one component of 
certiorari review:  whether the evidence was such that the 
Common Council might reasonably find it had been misled when it 
granted the conditional use permit.  In order to prevail, Oneida 
Seven must prove that under no reasonable view of the evidence 
presented to the Common Council on March 1, 2011, could the 
Common Council have been misled.   
1.  General principles 
¶92 We review the decision of the Common Council, not that 
of the Plan Commission.  I bring this to the fore because the 
majority opinion rests its affirmance of the court of appeals on 
an extensive discussion of the decision of the Plan Commission 
and how the Plan Commission supported the conditional use 
permit.4  However, it is the Common Council, and not the Plan 
Commission, that has the power to issue and to rescind 
conditional use permits.  See McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 29.120 at 
148 (3d ed.); Green Bay, Zoning Code § 13-205(5).  The Plan 
Commission makes recommendations to the Common Council, § 13-
205(3), and it may hold public hearings at the direction of the 
Common Council, id. at (4).  However, the Common Council had no 
obligation to accept the recommendation of the Plan Commission, 
but rather, the Common Council had an obligation to consider 
                                                 
4 Majority op., e.g., ¶¶23, 47, 50-53. 
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
6 
 
Oneida Seven's request and to make an independent decision on 
whether to grant the permit.  See Town of Brockway v. City of 
Black River Falls, 2005 WI App 174, ¶24, 285 Wis. 2d 708, 702 
N.W.2d 418 (concluding that the City was not bound until the 
common council decided whether to grant its approval).   
¶93 A conditional use permit is not property; it is a type 
of zoning designation.  Rainbow Springs Golf Co. v. Town of 
Mukwonago, 2005 WI App 163, ¶¶12-13, 284 Wis. 2d 519, 702 N.W.2d 
40.  As the court of appeals explained, "A zoning designation 
allows a landowner to use his or her property in certain ways."  
Id., ¶13.  Therefore, how the gasification system will operate 
is material to the conditional use granted to Oneida Seven.   
¶94 As we consider Oneida Seven's objection to the Common 
Council's rescission as it attempted to protect the health and 
safety of Green Bay residents, we must decide whether "taking 
into account all the evidence in the record, reasonable minds 
could arrive at the same conclusion as the Common Council," 
i.e., that it was misled when it granted the conditional use 
permit.  See Smith v. City of Milwaukee, 2014 WI App 95, ¶22, 
356 Wis. 2d 779, 854 N.W.2d 857 (citation and internal quotation 
marks omitted); see also Crystal Lake Cheese Factory v. LIRC, 
2003 WI 106, ¶27, 264 Wis. 2d 200, 664 N.W.2d 651) (explaining 
that "[t]he reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for 
that of an agency").   
¶95 In evaluating the evidence, we give the Common 
Council's decision a presumption of correctness and validity 
because doing so "recognizes that locally elected officials are 
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
7 
 
especially attuned to local concerns."  Ottman v. Town of 
Primrose, 2011 WI 18, ¶51, 332 Wis. 2d 3, 796 N.W.2d 411.  In 
the case before us, the locally elected Green Bay Common Council 
was concerned about the health and safety of Green Bay citizens. 
¶96 A 
misrepresentation 
is 
a 
statement 
of 
fact.  
Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 2004 WI 32, ¶13, 270 
Wis. 2d 146, 677 N.W.2d 233.  Here, we review the Common 
Council's findings of fact that misrepresentations were made to 
it when Oneida Seven obtained the conditional use permit.  
Because a court in certiorari review may not substitute its view 
of the evidence for that of a common council, we sustain a 
common council's finding that it was misled unless no reasonable 
view of the evidence will sustain that finding.  Ottman, 332 
Wis. 2d 3, ¶53.   
¶97 During certiorari review, we do not evaluate evidence 
to determine whether it could support Oneida Seven's position.  
However, that is exactly what the majority opinion has done:  it 
has evaluated evidence to determine whether it could support 
Oneida Seven's position. 
2.  Rescission 
¶98 The Common Council rescinded the conditional use 
permit because it found that it was misled in regard to the 
project's effects on "public safety and health."5  The Common 
Council's concerns were linked to representations in regard to 
emissions 
and 
in 
regard 
to 
the 
experimental 
nature 
of 
                                                 
5 October 16, 2012 statement of Alderman Sladek. 
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
8 
 
gasification facilities that use solid municipal waste as the 
feedstock for energy generation.   
¶99 Although the Common Council asserts that Oneida Seven 
misled it when obtaining the conditional use permit, the Common 
Council does not make a claim for actionable misrepresentation; 
but rather, the Common Council relies on misrepresentation as 
the equitable basis for its rescission of the conditional use 
permit.6  See Schnuth v. Harrison, 44 Wis. 2d 326, 337, 171 
N.W.2d 370 (1969) (explaining that misrepresentation can be 
grounds for rescission).     
¶100 In regard to emissions, the Common Council identified 
representations that it asserts were false:  First, Cornelius 
said that there would be no harmful emissions because all of the 
toxins would be scrubbed out of the syngas and would not be 
present in the greywater that resulted from that scrubbing.  
However, contrary to its position before the Common Council, on 
April 22, 2011, less than two months after it had secured the 
conditional use permit, Oneida Seven submitted to the DNR an 
"air 
pollution 
control 
permit 
application 
and 
plans 
and 
specifications," in which Oneida Seven requested permission to 
emit toxic materials.  Furthermore, on September 9, 2011, the 
DNR 
issued 
a 
permit 
for 
Oneida 
Seven's 
release 
of 
                                                 
6 Rescission is an equitable remedy.  Little v. Roundy's, 
Inc., 152 Wis. 2d 715, 722, 449 N.W.2d 78 (Ct. App. 1989).   
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
9 
 
dioxins/furans,7 cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, 
nitrous 
oxides, 
sulfur 
dioxide,8 
"fugitive 
ash," 
and 
formaldehyde.  Limitations for those emissions were listed in 
the DNR permit.   
¶101 Second, Cornelius said the facility would have "no 
smoke 
stacks." 
 
Both 
the 
pictures 
and 
the 
power 
point 
presentation provided to the Common Council on March 1, 2011, 
showed no stacks of any type.  The representation that there 
would be no stacks supported the representation that no toxins 
would be dispersed into the air because all toxins would be 
washed out in the internal scrubbing process.  However, on 
September 9, 2011, the DNR approved Oneida Seven's facility with 
7 stacks (three 60 feet tall; three 40 feet tall; one 45 feet 
                                                 
7 "Dioxins are highly toxic and can cause reproductive and 
developmental problems, damage the immune system, interfere with 
hormones and also cause cancer."  Dioxins and Their Effects on 
Human 
Health, 
World 
Health 
Organization 
site 
www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs225/en 
(last 
visited 
March 11, 2015). 
8 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) has a pungent and suffocating odor.  
Sulfur Dioxide, National Institutes of Health:  Tox Town, 
http://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text 
version/chemicals.php?id=29, 
(last updated May 13, 2015).  "Current scientific evidence links 
short-term exposures to SO2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, 
with 
an 
array 
of 
adverse 
respiratory 
effects 
including 
bronchoconstriction 
and 
increased 
asthma 
symptoms. 
 
These 
effects 
are 
particularly 
important 
for 
asthmatics."  
Environmental 
Protection 
Agency 
site 
www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/health.html 
(last 
visited 
March 11, 2015). 
 
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
10 
 
tall).  Stacks were required by the DNR to disperse toxins that 
Oneida Seven's gasification facility will generate.9   
¶102 Third, Cornelius repeatedly represented that this 
gasification facility would not be experimental because other 
gasification facilities used municipal solid waste as feedstock 
to generate syngas.  He represented that a facility such as 
Oneida Seven was seeking was operational in California.  He 
said, "[we] looked at it, the fact that it was operating in 
California, that it was permitted there.  When we saw it, we 
knew it was a good system."  As it turns out, there was no 
facility in the United States that used only municipal solid 
waste as the feedstock to generate syngas, which is the system 
Oneida Seven proposed.  
¶103 On 
October 16, 
2012, 
after 
gathering 
information 
subsequent to issuing the conditional use permit, the Common 
Council 
reviewed 
whether 
it 
had 
been 
misled 
by 
the 
representations Oneida Seven made, and Alderman Sladek moved to 
rescind the conditional use permit based on misrepresentations.  
Most of his concerns were directed at the statements of Kevin 
Cornelius.  He said that Cornelius's statements "were plain 
spoken statements, they contained no equivocation."10  Alderman 
Sladek said that when Common Council members "asked about 
emission, and chemicals, and hazardous materials at this 
                                                 
9 Original DNR Air Permit, R.13, Bates Stamps OSGC286-327 
(Sept. 9, 2011). 
10 October 16, 2012 statement of Alderman Sladek. 
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
11 
 
project, Kevin Cornelius provided false information" on subjects 
of "very high importance."11   
¶104 Alderman Nicholson remembered "Mr. Cornelius stated 
that there was going to be a closed system, no emissions.  Over 
months, all of [a] sudden there's going to be emissions, and 
it's not going to be a closed system."12  
¶105 The record of the March 1, 2011 Common Council meeting 
shows that Alderman Nicholson's recollection is correct.  First, 
Cornelius said, "there are no smoke stacks in it. For those of 
us here in Green Bay we know what that means.  And so, 
obviously, the system has to be pretty safe, pretty clean for 
that to happen."   
¶106 Cornelius was questioned further.  He was asked and he 
answered:  
Q. 
Is that true that that exhaust, because all of 
the treatments you're doing, with the metals and 
everything that is in there, that the exhaust is 
actually clean[?] 
A. 
Yes. 
Q. 
And also, relative to wastewater, you do such a 
good 
cleaning 
job 
that 
the 
impurities 
and 
everything are taken out of this water before you 
discharge it[?] 
A. 
Yeah.  I've got some technical people (pointing 
behind him), but it's classified as graywater and 
just goes into the regular sewer system. 
                                                 
11 Id. 
12 October 16, 2012 statement of Alderman Nicholson. 
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
12 
 
¶107 Alderman DeWane spoke next.  He said, "The question 
here is whether we were told enough . . . .  As time went on, 
things changed drastically. . . . [T]hings changed.  Emissions 
changed.  Stacks changed. . . .  I know that there is no other 
plant like this in the United States that burns this waste 
fuel."13 
¶108 Substantial evidence in the record supports the Common 
Council's finding that it was misled when it issued the 
conditional use permit.  A finding on whether Oneida Seven's 
representatives tried to be misleading is not necessary to 
support the Common Council's rescission of the conditional use 
permit.  See Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis. 2d 166, 168, 168 N.W.2d 
201 (1969) (explaining that "[r]escission of a contract in 
equity may be grounded on misrepresentations not intentionally 
made").   
¶109 The record also shows that the Common Council's 
concerns for the health and safety of the people of Green Bay 
were addressed when Cornelius said, "there are no smoke stacks 
in it.  For those of us here in Green Bay we know what that 
means.  And so, obviously, the system has to be pretty safe, 
pretty clean for that to happen."  Smoke stacks are used to 
expel toxic emissions from power plants, and Green Bay has ample 
experience with the emissions from power plants and other 
facilities.14  That there were no stacks for the proposed 
                                                 
13 October 16, 2012 statement of Alderman DeWane. 
14 "Each year, 48 million tons of toxic mercury alone goes 
up in the smoke from coal-burning power plants. Mercury is a 
(continued) 
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
13 
 
facility led to the Common Council's belief that the facility 
would not produce toxic emissions. 
¶110 However, the Common Council's belief conflicts with 
the DNR's September 9, 2011 determination, wherein the DNR 
approved the facility if it had seven stacks——three that were 60 
feet tall, three that were 40 feet tall, and one that was 45 
feet tall.  The DNR also listed the toxins that it anticipated 
would be emitted from the gasification facility——dioxins/furans, 
cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, nitrous oxides, 
sulfur dioxide, fugitive ash, and formaldehyde.   
¶111 The 
DNR 
determination 
directly 
conflicts 
with 
Cornelius's testimony on March 1, 2011, where he answered a 
direct question in regard to emissions and toxins: 
Q. 
Is that true that that exhaust, because all of 
the treatments you're doing, with the metals and 
everything that is in there, that the exhaust is 
actually clean[?] 
A. 
Yes.  
                                                                                                                                                             
potent, potentially deadly neurotoxin. Its worst effects are 
felt by the young, wrecking havoc with the development of 
children's nervous systems, affecting vision, hearing, speech 
and motor development. Even the unborn can be poisoned by the 
mercury in their mother's blood, and one out of 10 women in 
America has mercury levels high enough to affect the development 
of an unborn child. In Wisconsin, every single waterway in our 
state is listed as containing unsafe levels of mercury."  
Melanie G. Ramey, Op-Ed., More Work Needed to Protect Clean Air, 
The 
Cap 
Times, 
May 4, 
2012, 
http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/melanie-g-ramey-
more-work-needed-to-protect-clean-air/article_d9b116cc-954b-
11e1-ac67-001a4bcf887a.html.   
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
14 
 
Alderman DeWane was correct when he asserted on October 16, 
2012, "As time went on, things changed drastically. . . . 
Emissions changed.  Stacks changed."  The DNR permit to emit 
certain levels of toxic chemicals is ample evidence of that 
change.   
¶112 On certiorari review, the Common Council's finding 
that it was misled when it issued the conditional use permit is 
entitled to a presumption of correctness and validity, Driehaus, 
317 Wis. 2d 734, ¶13.  Furthermore, representations made when 
the Common Council issued the conditional use permit were such 
that the Common Council might reasonably rescind the conditional 
use 
permit 
upon 
recognition 
of 
Oneida 
Seven's 
misrepresentations.  Cohn, 247 Wis. 2d 118, ¶25.    
¶113 The majority opinion errs because it substitutes its 
view of the evidence for that of the Common Council.  Clark, 186 
Wis. 2d at 305.  The majority opinion leads itself astray by 
searching the record for evidence to support Oneida Seven's 
position that it did not misrepresent when the conditional use 
permit was obtained.15  However, whether there is evidence in the 
record that cuts against the Common Council's decision is not 
the test to apply in certiorari review.  Rather, Oneida Seven 
must prove there is no reasonable view of the evidence that 
                                                 
15 See, e.g., "[T]he documents from the DNR that are in the 
record support Cornelius's statement that the venturi scrubber 
would remove toxins from the syngas."  Majority op., ¶66.  "Mr. 
Cornelius's statements about the ash being put to beneficial 
uses are also supported by the DNR and DOE materials."  Id., 
¶69.   
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
15 
 
supports the action the Common Council took.  Smith, 356 Wis. 2d 
779, ¶22.   
¶114 Oneida Seven has failed to meet its burden.  In regard 
to a reasonable view of the evidence, it is interesting to note 
that in addition to this dissent, the circuit court also 
concluded that a reasonable view of the evidence supported the 
Common Council's decision to rescind the conditional use permit.  
The circuit court explained,  
Cornelius said there are no smokestacks.  Obviously, 
the system has to be pretty safe, pretty clean for 
that to happen.  And in the CUP, as you and I both 
know, there's drawings that do not indicate any type 
of smokestack. . . . 
The record at 21-122-23 shows a flat roof 
warehouse building, which I think would lead any 
reasonable person to believe there are no smokestacks 
because it's a completely closed loop process. . . .  
There would be nothing——there would be nothing to 
associate a smokestack with. 
. . . I'm not finding any evidence in this record 
that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that 
there would (a) be a smokestack or that (b) there 
would be a smokestack of this type of dimension, which 
is required by the DNR. . . .  
. . . . 
. . . I'm having a difficult time in reconciling 
statements no stacks and then the DNR permit that says 
in order to build this facility you must have a 60-
foot stack. 
And Seven Generation knows they can't do that 
because someone advised them of the building code that 
says it can't be higher than 35 feet. . . .   
Now we have no idea because there was never any 
evidence that I can find in the record that the 
redesigned building is going to work, has been tried 
and tested.  Your client's earlier statement, this 
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
16 
 
isn't new technology, this is done in California, is 
now inconsistent with the plans that are moving 
forward, 
inconsistent 
with 
the 
plans 
that 
were 
originally approved by the City of Green Bay when they 
issued the CUP. 
The circuit court's finding that the evidence reasonably 
supported 
the 
Common 
Council's 
decision 
to 
rescind 
the 
conditional use permit is uncontroverted by the majority 
opinion. 
III.  CONCLUSION 
¶115 The majority opinion errs because it did not accord 
the Common Council's decision the presumption of correctness and 
validity that the law requires, Driehaus, 317 Wis. 2d 734, ¶13.  
It substituted its view of the evidence for that of the Common 
Council, contrary to law, Clark, 186 Wis. 2d at 305.  
¶116 I conclude Oneida Seven has failed to meet its burden 
under certiorari review because a reasonable view of the 
presentations made March 1, 2011, when Oneida Seven obtained the 
conditional use permit, supports the Common Council's finding 
that it was misled.  Material misrepresentations were made to 
the Common Council in regard to emissions during operation of 
the gasification facility and that such a facility was not 
experimental because solid municipal waste was being used as the 
feedstock in other gasification facilities.  Therefore, I 
conclude that substantial evidence supports the Common Council's 
decision to rescind the conditional use permit.  Accordingly, I 
would reverse the court of appeals decision, affirm the circuit 
court's 
affirmance 
of 
the 
Common 
Council 
decision, 
and 
respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.   
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
17 
 
 
 
No.  2013AP591.pdr 
 
 
 
1