Title: Gerald G. Wood v. City of Madison
Citation: 2003 WI 24
Docket Number: 2001AP001206
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: April 11, 2003

2003 WI 24 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
01-1206 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Gerald G. Wood and Debra L. Wood,  
 
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
 
v. 
City of Madison, a Wisconsin municipal 
corporation, City of Madison Common Council, an 
approving authority of the City of Madison, City 
of Madison Plan Commission, a commission created 
by the City of Madison, Mark A. Olinger, 
Secretary of City of Madison Plan Commission, 
and Ray Fisher, Madison City Clerk-Treasurer,  
 
Defendants-Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 11, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
October 8, 2002   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Dane   
 
JUDGE: 
Richard J. Callaway   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
PROSSER, J., concurs (opinion filed). 
WILCOX and SYKES, J.J., join concurrence.   
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the plaintiffs-appellants there were briefs (in the 
court of appeals) by Troy M. Hellenbrand and Hellenbrand & 
Hellenbrand S.C., Waunakee, and Bruce K. Kaufmann and Law Office 
of Bruce K. Kaufmann, Madison, and oral argument by Troy M. 
Hellenbrand. 
 
For the defendants-respondents the cause was argued by 
James M. Voss, assistant city attorney, with whom on the brief 
was Larry W. O'Brien, acting city attorney. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by John A. Kassner and 
Brennan, Steil, Basting & MacDougall, S.C., Madison, on behalf 
 
 
2
of the Wisconsin Realtors Association, and there was oral 
argument by John A. Kassner. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Mark B. Hazelbaker, 
Madison, on behalf of the Dane County Towns Association. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Claire Silverman, 
Madison, on behalf of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Carol B. Nawrocki, 
Shawano, on behalf of the Wisconsin Towns Association. 
 
2003 WI 24 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  01-1206  
(L.C. No. 
00 CV 1860) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Gerald G. Wood and Debra L. Wood,  
 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
 
     v. 
 
City of Madison, a Wisconsin municipal  
corporation, City of Madison Common  
Council, an approving authority of the  
City of Madison, City of Madison Plan  
Commission, a commission created by the  
City of Madison, Mark A. Olinger,  
Secretary of City of Madison Plan  
Commission, and Ray Fisher, Madison City  
Clerk-Treasurer,  
 
          Defendants-Respondents. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 11, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
APPEAL from an order of the Circuit Court for Dane County, 
Richard J. Callaway, Judge.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   This case is before the court 
on certification from the court of appeals.1 The plaintiffs-
                                                 
1 The plaintiffs-appellants appeal an order of the Circuit 
Court for Dane County, Richard J. Callaway, Judge, denying their 
writ of certiorari and affirming the decision of the City of 
Madison Common Council. 
No. 
01-1206   
 
2 
 
appellants, Gerald and Debra Wood (the Woods) contend that the 
City of Madison (Madison)2 improperly used its plat approval 
authority to mandate land use through a subdivision ordinance.  
In essence, they assert that Madison used its platting authority 
to perform a zoning function. 
¶2 
In its certification, the court of appeals more 
precisely states the issue as follows: 
Does Wis. Stat. ch. 236 authorize a municipality to 
reject a preliminary plat under its extraterritorial 
jurisdictional 
authority 
based 
on 
a 
subdivision 
ordinance that considers the plat's proposed use? 
In addition, the court of appeals requests that we review the 
holding in Gordie Boucher Lincoln-Mercury v. Madison Plan 
Comm'n, 178 Wis. 2d 74, 503 N.W.2d 265 (Ct. App. 1993), which 
previously addressed this issue.  The court of appeals advances 
that Gordie Boucher "was probably wrongly decided." 
¶3 
In response to the issue presented, we conclude that 
Wis. Stat. ch. 236 (1999-2000)3 does authorize a municipality to 
reject 
a 
preliminary 
plat 
under 
its 
extraterritorial 
jurisdictional authority based upon a subdivision ordinance that 
considers the plat's proposed use.  Because Gordie Boucher 
declared otherwise, we agree with the court of appeals that it 
was in error.   We also conclude that the standards set forth in 
the subdivision ordinance in this case were neither vague nor 
                                                 
2 We will refer to the several defendants in this case 
collectively as "the City of Madison" or "Madison." 
3 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 1999-2000 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
01-1206   
 
3 
 
applied in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory manner.  
Accordingly, we determine that the City of Madison acted within 
its authority, and we affirm the circuit court order which 
upheld Madison's rejection of the Woods' plat. 
I 
¶4 
The facts of this case are not in significant dispute.  
The Woods own a 51.96 acre parcel of land east of Interstate 
Highway 90/94.  Although the parcel is in the Town of Burke, it 
is 
also 
within 
Madison's 
extraterritorial 
plat 
approval 
jurisdiction.4  Although some property adjacent to the Woods' 
plat is zoned for commercial use, much of the land to the east 
and west of the Woods' plat is zoned for agricultural purposes, 
and is used accordingly.    
¶5 
The Woods submitted an extraterritorial plat and land 
division application to the City of Madison, seeking approval of 
a preliminary plat5 that would divide their property into eleven 
lots.6  The Woods sought to change the zoning of nine of the 
proposed new lots from "Agricultural" to "Commercial." 
                                                 
4 "Extraterritorial 
plat 
jurisdiction" 
refers 
to 
the 
unincorporated area within 3 miles of the corporate limits of a 
first, second, or third class city, or 1 1/2 miles of a fourth 
class city or a village.  Wis. Stat. § 236.02(5). 
5 A "preliminary plat" is "a map showing the salient 
features of a proposed subdivision submitted to an approving 
authority 
for 
purposes 
of 
preliminary 
consideration."  
Wis. Stat. § 236.02(9). 
6 The Town of Burke had previously approved the preliminary 
plat and the Woods' rezoning petition.  The Dane County Zoning 
and Natural Resources Committee had conditionally approved both 
the preliminary plat and the rezoning petition. 
No. 
01-1206   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The City of Madison Department of Planning and 
Development issued a report analyzing the proposed plat under 
both the "Criteria for Agricultural Land Division" and the 
"Criteria for Non-Agricultural Land Division or Subdivision" of 
Madison General Ordinance (MGO) § 16.23(3)(c)1-2.  The report 
stated that the preliminary plat failed to meet the agricultural 
land division criteria because it did not "assist and assure the 
continuation of agricultural land use on this property." 
¶7 
In considering the preliminary plat under the non-
agricultural land division criteria, the report concluded that 
the development of the commercial lots would be incompatible 
with and would negatively impact the remaining lots and adjacent 
agricultural 
lands. 
 
It 
also 
concluded 
that 
commercial 
development would not constitute "infill," as little of the 
surrounding area featured commercial use.  An addendum to the 
report indicated that "the Planning Unit concludes that the 
proposed subdivision plat does not meet the standards for 
approval at this time."  The report recommended that the City of 
Madison Common Council reject the resolution approving the 
preliminary plat. 
¶8 
The City of Madison Plan Commission considered the 
Woods' application at two separate public hearings, on March 20, 
2000 
and 
May 
15, 
2000. 
 
At 
the 
first 
hearing, 
three 
No. 
01-1206   
 
5 
 
representatives of the Woods spoke on their behalf.7  After the 
second hearing, the plan commission recommended denying the 
Woods' application. 
¶9 
The Common Council subsequently adopted the plan 
commission's recommendation and rejected the proposed plat.  
Noting that "the area [adjacent to the Woods' land] is largely 
agricultur[al]," it concluded that "[t]he subdivision of the 
bulk of the agricultural lands that exist on the Wood property 
would be a significant expansion of commercial land use in this 
area, and create additional pressures on the conversion of the 
remaining agricultural lands that exist on the Wood parcel, as 
well as adjacent agriculturally-utilized lands."  
¶10 The Woods petitioned the Dane County Circuit Court for 
certiorari review of the City of Madison's decision, pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. §§ 236.15(5) and 62.23(7)(e)10.  The court affirmed 
Madison's rejection of the plat, finding that the City "did not 
violate any part of" chapter 236, and that the City's decision 
was intended to further the quality of the subdivision.  It also 
concluded that the rejection of the plat was "clearly grounded 
in the plain language of the non-agricultural criteria" of MGO 
§ 16.23.  The Woods appealed to the court of appeals, which 
subsequently certified the appeal to this court. 
II 
                                                 
7 At 
the 
March 
20, 
2000 
hearing, 
Dan 
Birrenkott 
(representing the Woods), Sam Simon, and Sean Wolf registered 
and spoke in support of the Woods' preliminary plat application.  
Birrenkott was the Woods' surveyor; Simon was their real estate 
agent. 
No. 
01-1206   
 
6 
 
¶11 Resolution of the issue set forth in the certification 
by the court of appeals requires us to interpret portions of 
chapters 62 and 236 of the Wisconsin Statutes.  Statutory 
interpretation presents a question of law subject to independent 
appellate review.  Lake City Corp. v. City of Mequon, 207 
Wis. 2d 155, 162, 563 N.W.2d 145 (1997). 
¶12 Resolution of the remaining issues requires us to 
review the decision by the Madison Common Council rejecting the 
Woods' preliminary plat.  Appeals from the rejection of a plat 
are governed by Wis. Stat. §§ 236.13(5) and 62.23(7)(e)10.  A 
person aggrieved by such a rejection may commence a certiorari 
action.  Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(e)10.  On certiorari, a court 
"shall direct that the plat be approved if it finds that the 
action 
of 
the 
approving 
authority . . . is 
arbitrary, 
unreasonable or discriminatory."  Wis. Stat. § 236.13(5).  On 
appeal from an order or judgment entered on certiorari, a 
reviewing court reviews the record of the agency, not the 
findings or judgment of the circuit court.  Hoepker v. City of 
Madison Plan Comm'n, 209 Wis. 2d 663, 563 N.W.2d 145 (1997).  
Whether an agency has exceeded its authority in rejecting a plat 
also presents a question of law, subject to independent 
appellate review.  Pederson v. Town Bd. of Town of Windsor, 191 
Wis. 2d 663, 669 n.2, 530 N.W.2d 427 (Ct. App. 1995). 
   
III 
 
¶13 We begin with the issue presented by the court of 
appeals: 
No. 
01-1206   
 
7 
 
Does Wis. Stat. ch. 236 authorize a municipality to 
reject a preliminary plat under its extraterritorial 
jurisdictional 
authority 
based 
on 
a 
subdivision 
ordinance that considers the plat's proposed use? 
Chapter 236 of the Wisconsin Statutes is entitled "Platting 
Lands and Recording and Vacating Plats."  It "regulates 
intensively the process by which land can be divided into 
building sites."  Town of Sun Prairie v. Storms, 110 Wis. 2d 58, 
61, 327 N.W.2d 642 (1983).  The purpose of the chapter is set 
out in Wis. Stat. § 236.01: 
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the 
subdivision of land to promote public health, safety 
and general welfare; to further the orderly layout and 
use of land; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to 
lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to 
provide for adequate light and air; to facilitate 
adequate provision for water, sewerage and other 
public requirements; to provide for proper ingress and 
egress; and to promote proper monumenting of land 
subdivided 
and 
conveyancing 
by 
accurate 
legal 
description.  The approvals to be obtained by the 
subdivider as required in this chapter shall be based 
on requirements designed to accomplish the aforesaid 
purposes. 
¶14 Wisconsin requires that all subdivisions be surveyed 
and that all plats be approved before they can be recorded.  
Wis. Stat. § 236.03(1). 
 
Local 
governments 
with 
planning 
agencies have the power to approve subdivision plats.  Storms, 
110 Wis. 2d at 61; Mequon v. Lake Estates Co., 52 Wis. 2d 765, 
773, 190 N.W.2d  912 (1971).  Plats located within the 
extraterritorial plat approval jurisdiction of a municipality 
require approval by the town board, the county planning agency, 
and the governing body of the municipality or its planning 
No. 
01-1206   
 
8 
 
committee or commission.  Wis. Stat. §§ 236.10(1)(b)1. and 3.; 
236.10(3). 
¶15 Approval of any plat is also conditioned on compliance 
with 
any 
subdivision 
ordinance 
validly 
enacted 
by 
the 
appropriate 
municipality, 
town, 
or 
county. 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 236.13(1)(b).  If multiple governing bodies or agencies with 
authority to approve or reject a plat have ordinances with 
conflicting requirements, the plat must comply with the most 
restrictive requirements.  Wis. Stat. § 236.13(4).   
¶16 In Wis. Stat. § 236.45, the legislature has permitted 
municipalities, towns, and counties, if they have established 
planning agencies, to legislate more intensively in the field of 
subdivision control than provided for the state at large by 
allowing them to adopt ordinances which are more restrictive 
than the provisions of ch. 236.  Section 236.45(3) authorizes 
municipalities to utilize their subdivision ordinances within 
their extraterritorial plat approval jurisdiction. 
¶17 Wisconsin Stat. § 236.45(1) explains the legislative 
intent behind the additional subdivision plat approval authority 
granted under the section: 
(1) Declaration 
of 
legislative 
intent. 
The 
purpose of this section is to promote the public 
health, safety and general welfare of the community 
and the regulations authorized to be made are designed 
to . . . further 
the 
orderly 
layout 
and 
use 
of 
land; . . . to prevent the overcrowding of land; to 
avoid undue concentration of population; . . . .  The 
regulations provided for by this section shall be made 
with reasonable consideration, among other things, of 
the character of the municipality, town or county with 
a view of conserving the value of the buildings placed 
No. 
01-1206   
 
9 
 
upon land, providing the best possible environment for 
human 
habitation, 
and 
for 
encouraging 
the 
most 
appropriate use of land throughout the municipality, 
town or county. 
Wis. Stat. § 236.45(1) (emphasis added). 
¶18 In Mequon, 52 Wis. 2d at 774, we described the 
statement of legislative intent in § 236.45(1) as "indicat[ing] 
that the purpose of the law is to permit a municipality to adopt 
regulations encouraging the most appropriate use of land 
throughout."  Noting that under § 236.45(2)(b), "any ordinance 
adopted by a municipality shall be liberally construed in favor 
of the municipality," we described § 236.45 as granting wide 
discretion that a municipality may exercise by ordinance or 
appropriate resolution.  Id. 
¶19 The plain language of the declaration of intent in 
§ 236.45(1) leaves no doubt that subdivision regulations and 
ordinances may consider the use of land.  In fact, the statute 
requires that such ordinances "shall be made with reasonable 
consideration . . . of the character of the municipality, town 
or county with a view . . . for encouraging the most appropriate 
use of land throughout the municipality, town or county."  
Wis. Stat. § 236.45(1)(emphasis added). 
¶20 The 
Woods 
present 
no 
argument 
to 
the 
contrary 
regarding the meaning of the term "use" as set forth in 
§ 236.45(1).  They do not claim that the word "use" in the 
context of the phrase "encouraging the most appropriate use of 
land" refers to something other than the common, ordinary 
meaning of the word. 
No. 
01-1206   
 
10 
 
¶21 Notwithstanding the explicit language in Wis. Stat. 
§ 236.45(1) authorizing the planning agencies of municipalities, 
towns, and counties to enact subdivision ordinances that 
consider the "most appropriate use of land," the Woods contend 
that the use of property may not properly be the subject of 
subdivision approval authority under chapter 236.  They assert 
that platting authority is inherently different from zoning 
authority and that only zoning regulations may consider the use 
of land.  In essence, they claim that Wis. Stat. § 62.23 
relating to city planning, and in particular subsections (7) and 
(7a) of the statute, on zoning and extraterritorial zoning, 
respectively, provide the sole authorization for municipal 
regulations concerning land use.8 
¶22 Wisconsin Stat. § 62.23(7)(a) 
authorizes 
cities 
to 
regulate by zoning: 
(a) Grant of power. For the purpose of promoting 
health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the 
community, the council may regulate and restrict by 
ordinance, . . . the size of yards, courts and other 
open spaces, the density of population, and the 
location and use of buildings, structures and land for 
trade, 
industry, 
mining, 
residence 
or 
other 
purposes . . . . 
Cities are authorized under § 62.23(7)(b) to "divide the city 
into districts . . . as may be deemed best suited to carry out 
the purposes" of the chapter.  Within zoning districts, cities 
                                                 
8 The argument regarding the interaction of chapters 62 and 
236 is more fully set forth in the brief and oral argument of 
the Wisconsin Realtors Association, as amicus curiae in support 
of the Woods.  
No. 
01-1206   
 
11 
 
may 
"regulate 
and 
restrict 
the 
erection, 
construction, 
reconstruction, alteration or use of buildings, structures or 
land."  Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(b). 
¶23 The purposes of zoning are listed in § 62.23(7)(c), 
and 
apply 
as 
well 
to 
extraterritorial 
zoning 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7a).9  The listed purposes are remarkably 
similar to those which underlie subdivision plat approval 
authority 
under 
§ 236.45(1). 
 
Notably, 
both 
zoning 
and 
subdivision plat approval authority state that regulation "shall 
be made with reasonable consideration . . . of the character of 
the district . . . with a view to . . . encouraging the most 
appropriate 
use 
of 
land." 
 
Wis. Stat. §§ 62.23(7)(c) 
and 
236.45(1). 
                                                 
9 Wisconsin Stat. § 62.23(7)(c) provides: 
Purposes in view. Such regulations shall be made 
in accordance with a comprehensive plan and designed 
to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety 
from fire, panic and other dangers; to promote health 
and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and 
air, including access to sunlight for solar collectors 
and to wind for wind energy systems; to encourage the 
protection of groundwater resources; to prevent the 
overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of 
population; to facilitate the adequate provision of 
transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and 
other public requirements; and to preserve burial 
sites, as defined in s. 157.70(1)(b). Such regulations 
shall be made with reasonable consideration, among 
other things, of the character of the district and its 
peculiar suitability for particular uses, and with a 
view 
to 
conserving 
the 
value 
of 
buildings 
and 
encouraging 
the 
most 
appropriate 
use 
of 
land 
throughout such city. 
 
No. 
01-1206   
 
12 
 
¶24 Although the legislature has conferred upon cities 
both extraterritorial zoning authority and extraterritorial 
subdivision plat approval authority, and has stated that the 
purposes for each type of regulation are nearly identical, the 
Woods insist that the use of land may not be considered in 
subdivision plat approval decisions.  They largely base their 
contention on Gordie Boucher, 178 Wis. 2d 74, a case decided by 
the court of appeals in 1993. 
¶25 Gordie Boucher concerned the City of Madison Common 
Council's denial of a certified survey map (CSM) which a 
corporation (Boucher) had submitted because it wanted to locate 
an automobile dealership on a lot in the Madison-Sun Prairie 
visual open space separation district.  The lot's zoning 
permitted the proposed use of land, and the Town of Burke and 
Dane County conditionally approved the CSM.  Id. at 82-83.  The 
City of Madison denied Boucher's CSM for several reasons.  
However, on appeal it relied on only one of the reasons: "The 
proposed survey is not consistent with the City's Master Plan, 
including the Peripheral Area Development Plan, the Land Use 
Plan, and the Parks and Open Space Plan."  Id. at 83.   
¶26 On certiorari review, the circuit court concluded that 
Madison's rejection of Boucher's CSM based on inconsistency with 
the city's master plan constituted extraterritorial zoning.  The 
court determined that the city "used its plat approval authority 
to regulate for what, as opposed to how, the parcel may be 
used."  Id. at 89.  It therefore ordered the city to 
No. 
01-1206   
 
13 
 
conditionally 
approve 
the 
CSM 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. Stat. 
§ 236.13(5).  Id. at 83-84. 
¶27 On appeal, the issue was "whether the plan commission 
engaged in zoning when it used its plat approval authority to 
control land use in the city's extraterritorial plat approval 
jurisdiction."  Id. at 93.  The court of appeals determined that 
the City of Madison had engaged in zoning by controlling land 
use.  It stated: 
In this case, however, the approving authority 
has rejected a proposed land division for reasons 
having nothing to do with the quality of the division. 
It is the use to which Boucher proposes to put lot two 
which the commission claims justifies its rejection of 
its CSM.  Land use control is the function of zoning. 
Id. at 98 (emphasis in original). 
¶28 The Gordie Boucher court drew a clear distinction 
between zoning and subdivision approval.  It concluded:  
While ch. 236, Stats., and sec. 236.45, Stats., 
confer broad regulatory authority upon local governing 
bodies, that authority relates to the quality of the 
subdivision or land division and not to the use to 
which the lots in the subdivision or land division may 
be put.  Control over the use to which property may be 
devoted is a zoning control which can be imposed only 
by 
a 
comprehensive 
zoning 
ordinance 
enacted 
as 
required by the zoning enabling act. 
Id. at 101-02 (emphasis added). 
¶29 The court in Gordie Boucher recognized an overlap 
between zoning and platting when plat approval imposes "quality" 
requirements.  Id. at 96.  However, it did not clearly explain 
the meaning of "quality" in this context.  It noted that 
"quality" considerations include "the orderly layout and use of 
No. 
01-1206   
 
14 
 
land."  Id.  As the court of appeals stated in its certification 
of this case, "[i]n many cases it will be impossible to 
distinguish a 'quality' requirement from a use restriction 
because regulating uses is generally aimed at maintaining a high 
quality of living." 
¶30 Thus, we do not believe the "quality" standard 
referred to in Gordie Boucher to distinguish between zoning 
functions and subdivision approval functions is tenable.  Under 
the plain language of the declaration of legislative intent in 
§ 236.45(1), all subdivision regulations "shall" be made with a 
view 
for 
"encouraging 
the 
most 
appropriate 
use 
of 
land 
throughout the municipality, town or county."  Therefore, any 
regulation relating to the "quality" of a subdivision must 
necessarily consider the "most appropriate use" of land.  We 
cannot fathom how an ordinance can consider the most appropriate 
use of land if it cannot consider the use of land. 
¶31 As noted above, in certifying the issue presented in 
this case, the court of appeals concluded that "Gordie Boucher 
was probably wrongly decided."  The court of appeals questioned 
the reasoning in Gordie Boucher: "we believe that the mutually 
exclusive view of zoning and platting that Gordie Boucher 
adopted is somewhat artificial and unsupported by either 
Wisconsin case law or statutes."10 
                                                 
10 The court of appeals acknowledged in its certification 
that it does not have the power to overrule the Gordie Boucher 
holding, but could "signal [its] disfavor" for the decision and 
request that this court consider overruling the prior holding.  
See Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189-90, 560 N.W.2d 246 
(1997). 
No. 
01-1206   
 
15 
 
¶32 The certification specifically points to the language 
in 
Wis. Stat. § 236.45 
requiring 
that 
governmental 
bodies 
enacting 
subdivision 
ordinances 
do 
so 
with 
a 
view 
of 
"encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the 
municipality, town or county."  The court of appeals notes that 
it did not address the above-quoted language in Gordie Boucher, 
and asserts that it "believe[s] the legislature has expressed 
approval for municipalities to include in their subdivision 
ordinances 
and 
master 
plans 
considerations 
regarding 
the 
proposed use of a plat."  
¶33 We agree with the court of appeals that the holding in 
Gordie Boucher does not accurately reflect the law and must be 
overruled.  Although Gordie Boucher correctly noted that zoning 
and subdivision plat approval authority are different types of 
land use controls which do not serve identical purposes, it 
incorrectly concluded that subdivision plat approval authority 
may not consider the appropriate use of land.   
¶34 The court did not attempt to reconcile its conclusion 
that land use is strictly a zoning issue with the final sentence 
in § 236.45(1):  "The regulations provided for by this section 
shall 
be 
made 
with 
reasonable 
consideration . . . of 
the 
character 
of 
the 
municipality, 
town 
or 
county 
with 
a 
view . . . for encouraging the most appropriate use of land 
throughout the municipality, town or county."    The court's 
conclusion is contrary to this clear statutory language.   
¶35 Moreover, 
while 
Gordie 
Boucher 
cited 
numerous 
secondary authorities indicating that zoning and platting are 
No. 
01-1206   
 
16 
 
mutually exclusive, and that "use" of land relates only to 
zoning, it disregarded case law determining that while zoning 
and platting are different, zoning authority and platting 
authority are not mutually exclusive.  In Storms, we determined 
that certain types of regulations could be accomplished by 
zoning or by subdivision approval authority: 
As long as the regulation is authorized by and 
within the purposes of ch. 236, the fact that it may 
also fall under the zoning power does not preclude a 
local government from enacting the regulation pursuant 
to the conditions and procedures of ch. 236. 
Storms, 110 Wis. 2d at 70-71.  Additionally, in Lake City, while 
noting the different authorizations for zoning and platting, we 
stated that "the authority of the agency assigned to plat review 
may not be limited by zoning regulations."  Lake City, 207 
Wis. 2d at 173. 
¶36 We further stated in Storms, in comparing zoning and 
subdivision approval authority, that: 
Zoning 
presupposes 
that 
the 
needs 
of 
the 
community have become sufficiently crystallized to 
permit 
the 
enactment 
of 
specific 
regulations.  
Subdivision control, on the other hand, establishes 
more general standards to be specifically applied by 
an administrative body in order to insure that the 
change 
of 
use 
will 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
community. 
Id. at 69 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).  We thus spoke 
of subdivision approval authority as essentially regulating the 
"use" of land. 
¶37 For these reasons, we conclude, in response to the 
issue set forth in the certification, that Wis. Stat. ch. 236 
No. 
01-1206   
 
17 
 
does authorize a municipality to reject a preliminary plat under 
its extraterritorial jurisdictional authority based upon a 
subdivision ordinance that considers the plat's proposed use.  
Because Gordie Boucher concluded otherwise, its holding must be 
overruled.   
¶38 Our conclusion in large part is driven by the plain 
language of the declaration of intent in § 236.45(1) which 
leaves no doubt that subdivision ordinances may consider the 
proposed use of land.  The Woods and the amici argue that such a 
conclusion is bad policy.  The remedy for change of this policy, 
however, lies with the legislature.11  The courts should 
not rewrite the clear language of the statute. 
IV 
¶39 Having determined that subdivision regulations under 
chapter 236 may consider the use of land, we turn to the 
ordinances at issue in this case and their application.  The 
Woods contend that the City of Madison's rejection of their 
application was arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory.  
They also advance that the ordinances improperly require the 
exercise of discretion by the plat approval authority and are 
impermissibly vague. 
                                                 
11 The legislature recently enacted new "Smart Growth" 
legislation, Wis. Stat. § 66.1001, that requires municipalities 
to adopt comprehensive plans that include land use provisions.  
See 1999 Wis. Act 9.  While the parties briefly address its 
implications, this legislation will not fully take effect until 
2010, and does not apply in this case.  Wis. Stat. § 66.1001(3). 
No. 
01-1206   
 
18 
 
¶40 The 
ordinance 
provisions 
at 
issue 
are 
part 
of 
Madison's 
"Land 
Subdivision 
Regulations" 
ordinance, 
which 
functions to "regulate and control the subdivision of land 
within the corporate limits and extraterritorial plat approval 
jurisdiction of the City . . . ."  MGO § 16.23.  Specifically at 
issue is Madison's extraterritorial plat approval ordinance, 
under which "[t]he Plan Commission may recommend or approve the 
subdividing of lands in the extraterritorial plat approval 
jurisdiction 
based 
on 
the 
applicable 
criteria 
enumerated 
hereinafter."  MGO § 16.23(3)(c).  
¶41 The "applicable criteria" depend on whether the land 
is agricultural or nonagricultural.  The extraterritorial plat 
approval ordinance, MGO § 16.23(3)(c), sets forth only one 
criterion for agricultural land division: the subdivision must 
"assist and assure the continuation of the agricultural use."  
For nonagricultural land, a subdivision or land division must 
meet each of four criteria.  It must: "be compatible with 
adjacent land uses" and "maintain the general land use pattern 
of the area"; "result in a development pattern which is 
compatible with surrounding developments and land uses"; "not 
demonstrably adversely affect the City's ability to provide 
public services, install public improvements or accomplish 
future annexations"; and either constitute "infilling" of vacant 
land or "provide permanent open space lands for use by the 
general public."12  MGO § 16.23(3)(c)2.a.-d. 
                                                 
12 Madison General Ordinance § 16.23(3)(c)1-2 reads: 
No. 
01-1206   
 
19 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
1. Criteria for Agricultural Land Division.  The Plan 
Commission may grant approval of a land division 
subdividing portions of agricultural lands provided 
the Commission shall determine that the proposed land 
division will assist and assure the continuation of 
the agricultural use. 
2. Criteria for Nonagricultural Subdivision or Land 
Division.  In the case of nonagricultural lands, the 
Plan 
Commission 
may 
recommend 
approval 
of 
a 
subdivision to the Common Council or may grant 
approval of a land division provided that the Plan 
Commission 
shall 
determine 
that 
the 
proposed 
subdivision or land division complies with each of the 
following four criteria: 
a. 
The proposed subdivision or land division shall 
be compatible with adjacent land uses and shall 
maintain the general land use pattern of the area 
in question. 
b. 
The proposed subdivision or land division shall 
result 
in 
a 
development 
pattern 
which 
is 
compatible with surrounding developments and land 
uses.  Measures of compatibility shall consider 
lot sizes, traffic generation, access, noise and 
visual features. 
c. 
The proposed subdivision or land division and the 
resulting 
development 
shall 
not 
demonstrably 
adversely affect the City's ability to provide 
public services, install public improvements or 
accomplish 
future 
annexations. . . . The 
Plan 
Commission may also consider whether the City and 
Town(s) have reached an agreement on necessary 
public 
improvements 
and 
public 
services 
facilities required to serve the development. 
d. 
The proposed subdivision or land division shall 
comply with one of the following: 
No. 
01-1206   
 
20 
 
¶42 The City of Madison plan commission determined that 
the proposed preliminary plat did not satisfy the Criteria for 
Agricultural Land Division.  It found that the subdivision did 
not comply with MGO § 16.23(3)(c)1. because it would not "assist 
and assure the continuation of agricultural land use on the 
property" and because "development of nine lots for commercial 
purposes under the proposed C-2 commercial zoning will result in 
a loss of most of the agriculturally utilized lands within the 
boundaries of the proposed preliminary plat." 
¶43 The 
plan 
commission 
also 
determined 
that 
the 
subdivision did not meet three of the "Criteria for Non-
Agricultural Subdivision or Land Division."  Finding that the 
subdivision did not comply with MGO § 16.23(3)(c)2.a. because it 
did not maintain the general use patterns of the area, the plan 
commission stated: 
                                                                                                                                                             
i. 
The 
proposed 
subdivision . . . shall 
represent 
infilling 
of 
vacant 
land.  
Infilling 
is 
defined 
as 
a 
subdivision 
. . . which will accommodate the development 
of vacant land located such that surrounding 
existing 
land 
uses 
render 
the 
land 
impractical for any but similar uses. 
ii. The proposed subdivision . . . shall provide 
permanent open space lands for use by the 
general 
public 
in 
conformance 
with 
the 
adopted Parks and Open Space Plan for Dane 
County, 
Wisconsin, 
the 
City 
of 
Madison 
adopted Parks and Open Space Plan or the 
City’s other adopted Master Plan elements, 
including the Peripheral Area Development 
Plan. . . .    
No. 
01-1206   
 
21 
 
The 
undivided 
property 
currently 
consists 
of 
agricultural lands . . . .  The subdivision of this 
property to create nine commercial lots does not 
appear to be compatible with adjacent land uses and 
[does not] maintain the general land use pattern of 
the area in question.  The development of nine 
commercial 
lots 
will 
be 
inconsistent 
with 
the 
remaining 
conservation 
easement 
parcel . . . the 
remaining 
agricultural 
lands . . . in 
addition 
to 
vacant, agricultural, unimproved lands to the west and 
to the east. 
 
¶44 The 
plan 
commission 
also 
determined 
that 
the 
subdivision 
did 
not 
meet 
the 
requirements 
of 
MGO 
§ 16.23(3)(c)2.b. because the commercial development was not 
compatible with surrounding land uses: 
The development of currently agricultural lands for 
commercial purposes proposed with this preliminary 
plat 
would 
extend 
the 
scattering 
of 
unplanned, 
commercial development within the general area . . . . 
 The development of the agricultural lands on this 
property 
for 
commercial 
purposes 
will 
negatively 
impact the rural agricultural land uses that will 
remain on this parcel, as well as adjacent parcels to 
the immediate east and west. 
 
¶45 Finally, the plan commission found that the proposed 
plat was inconsistent with MGO § 16.23(3)(c)2.d. because the 
commercial lots would not constitute infill:   
Although there is a scattering of . . . commercial 
development adjacent to this parcel, the existing 
agricultural land use on the parcel, combined with the 
extensive 
agricultural 
land 
uses 
on 
properties 
immediately to the east and west . . . establish the 
general character of the area. . . . [The area] is 
largely 
agricultur[al] 
interspersed 
with 
small, 
single-family improved lots.  The subdivision of the 
bulk of the agricultural lands that exist on the Wood 
property 
would 
be 
a 
significant 
expansion 
of 
commercial land use in this area . . . .  The creation 
of 
nine 
commercial 
lots 
on 
a 
parcel 
where 
no 
commercial activity exists beyond [an] agricultural 
No. 
01-1206   
 
22 
 
trucking firm . . . does not support a conclusion that 
this would be infill development. . . .    
¶46 The plan commission therefore recommended that the 
Common Council deny the proposed plat.  The Common Council 
adopted the findings of the plan commission and subsequently 
rejected the proposed plat.   
¶47 Like the circuit court, we conclude that the findings 
in the City of Madison's decision were clearly grounded in the 
plain language of the non-agricultural criteria of the Madison 
general ordinances 
relating 
to subdivision 
plat 
approval.  
Accordingly, we determine that the City of Madison acted within 
its authority in rejecting the application and that its actions 
were not arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory.   
¶48 The Woods claim that platting approval is purely 
ministerial and that the Common Council's consideration of 
compatibility of uses was improper because it required an 
exercise of discretion.  However, discretion is granted to 
municipalities 
to 
condition 
approval 
on 
compliance 
with 
municipal ordinances.  Wis. Stat. § 236.13(1)(b).  A city has 
broad discretion to implement subdivision control if its 
ordinances comport with the platting statutes.  State ex rel. 
Columbia Corp. v. Pacific Town Bd., 92 Wis. 2d 767, 778, 286 
N.W.2d 130 (Ct. App. 1979) (citing Mequon, 52 Wis. 2d at 773-
74).  There is no dispute that if a proposed plat is not in 
compliance with an existing statutory requirement or ordinance, 
plat approval authorities may properly reject it.  In this case, 
No. 
01-1206   
 
23 
 
the City of Madison properly rejected the proposed plat after 
finding that it was inconsistent with city ordinances. 
¶49 Finally, 
the 
Woods 
assert 
that 
the 
ordinance 
provisions and their application by the City of Madison are too 
vague for Madison to fulfill its administrative responsibilities 
under the law.  The Woods' vagueness argument is premised on the 
ordinance lacking set standards, resulting in the unauthorized 
exercise of discretion.  Because we have determined above that 
the City of Madison properly made findings which comported with 
specific standards set forth in the ordinances, and that the 
City 
appropriately 
exercised 
its 
discretion, 
the 
Woods' 
vagueness argument must fail. 
¶50 Additionally, the Woods' vagueness argument relies on 
Columbia Corp., 92 Wis. 2d at 774, 779, in asserting that the 
regulations in the subdivision ordinance fail to give adequate 
warning as to what the approving authority would consider in 
making its decision.  Columbia Corp. does not support the Woods' 
position.  
¶51   The court determined in Columbia Corp. that plat 
approval authorities have no discretion to reject proposed plats 
"unless 
the 
plat 
conflicts 
with 
an 
existing 
statutory 
requirement of ch. 236 or with an existing written ordinance."  
Id. at 779.  At the time of the plat rejection in Columbia 
Corp., there was no existing written ordinance, much less set 
standards.  Here, however, a written ordinance existed which was 
No. 
01-1206   
 
24 
 
of long standing, published on the Internet, and available to 
developers and property owners.13 
V 
¶52 In summary, we hold that Wis. Stat. ch. 236 authorizes 
a 
municipality 
to 
reject 
a 
preliminary 
plat 
under 
its 
extraterritorial 
jurisdictional 
authority 
based 
upon 
a 
subdivision ordinance that considers the plat's proposed use.  
We overrule Gordie Boucher because it held to the contrary.  We 
also determine that the standards set forth in the subdivision 
ordinance in this case were neither vague nor applied in an 
arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory manner.  Accordingly, 
we determine that the City of Madison acted within its 
authority, and we affirm the circuit court order which upheld 
Madison's rejection of the Woods' plat. 
By the Court.—The order of the circuit court is affirmed.  
                                                 
13 The Woods make an additional argument, claiming that 
Madison improperly conditioned approval of their proposed plat 
on a requirement of public improvements.  However, if one of 
Madison's reasons for rejecting the final plat is adequate, the 
court need not consider whether the other reasons are valid. See 
Busse v. City of Madison, 177 Wis. 2d 808, 813, 503 N.W.2d 340 
(Ct. App. 1993). Because we have determined that Madison's 
rejection of the proposed plat based on the change in use of the 
land was proper, we need not reach the public improvement issue.   
Likewise, we note that although the Woods have not 
challenged the constitutionality of the procedures set forth in 
chapter 236, the amicus curiae brief of the Wisconsin Realtors 
Association argues that due process considerations mandate the 
use of zoning, not platting, to control land use.  Because an 
argument challenging the procedural provisions in chapter 236 
was not argued or preserved by the Woods, we do not address it 
here. 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
1 
 
¶53 DAVID T. PROSSER, J.   (concurring).  The sole purpose 
of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the 
legislature.  Stockbridge School Dist. v. Dep't of Pub. 
Instruction, 202 Wis. 2d 214, 219, 550 N.W.2d 96 (1996).  The 
language and legislative history of Wisconsin's subdivision 
statutes leave me no choice but to affirm the circuit court on 
the record in this case.  My analysis of the statutes is set out 
in Sections I-VI of this concurrence. 
¶54 I write separately because my analysis of the law is 
different from the analysis in the majority opinion.  In 
particular, there is no need for the court to overrule Gordie 
Boucher Lincoln-Mercury v. Madison Plan Commission, 178 Wis. 2d 
74, 503 N.W.2d 205 (1993).  As explained in Sections VII and 
VIII, the majority opinion relies too heavily on selected 
passages 
from 
the 
broad 
declarations 
of 
policy 
in 
the 
subdivision chapter, as opposed to specific grants of authority 
in the chapter.  It loses sight of the statutory scheme and 
avoids any effort to harmonize the statutes on extraterritorial 
subdivision regulation with the statute on extraterritorial 
zoning.  Consequently, the opinion promotes intergovernmental 
conflict, not intergovernmental cooperation.  In addition, the 
majority opinion fails to digest the extensive background and 
history of the subdivision chapter or to recognize limits to the 
content of local subdivision ordinances and extraterritorial 
planning.   
¶55 Although the majority opinion is correct in affirming 
the rejection of the disputed plat, its analysis is at odds with 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
2 
 
the intent of the legislature.  This requires me to disavow both 
the majority's interpretation of subdivision regulation and its 
decision to overrule Gordie Boucher. 
I 
¶56 Wisconsin has always followed its own course in 
regulating the subdivision of land.  It has differed from states 
influenced by the Standard City Planning Enabling Act developed 
by the United States Department of Commerce in 1928.  The 
Standard Act authorized municipal controls over subdivisions, 
but these controls were more limited than the controls that have 
evolved in Wisconsin and they maintained a clear distinction 
between planning and zoning. 
¶57 Regulating the platting of land has a long history in 
this state.  The first applicable regulations on this subject 
"are contained in the Laws of Michigan of 1833.  Similar 
provisions are contained in the Revised Statutes of 1839 of the 
territory of Wisconsin and in the first statutes of the state, 
Revised Statutes of 1849."  35 Op. Att'y Gen. 437, 439 (1946).  
As early as 1882 the legislature required that the streets and 
alleys in new subdivisions be platted to conform to existing 
streets and alleys.  § 1, ch. 52, Laws of 1882.   
 
¶58 Chapter 236 of 
the 
Wisconsin Statutes, entitled 
"Platting Lands and Recording and Vacating Plats," represents 
the sum of this state's subdivision enactments over the years.  
The chapter was comprehensively revised in 1955.  See ch. 570, 
Laws of 1955.  Individual sections of the chapter have been 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
3 
 
refined since then, and it is the current law that governs this 
case. 
¶59 Several of the law's key provisions originated before 
1955.  For instance, cities have had extraterritorial plat 
approval authority since 1909.  The legislature provided that 
when land was divided within "one and one-half miles" of a 
first, second, or third class city, the owner of the land had to 
"cause the streets and alleys shown on the map . . . to be laid 
out and platted to the satisfaction of the common council of 
such cities."  § 1, ch. 121, Laws of 1909.  Any map or plat that 
did not receive such approval could not be recorded.  Id.  
Extraterritorial plat approval authority is presently found in 
Wis. Stat. §§ 236.02(5), 
236.10(1)(b), 
and 
236.45(3) 
(1999-
2000).14  The extraterritorial jurisdiction of first, second, and 
third 
class 
cities 
has 
been 
extended 
to 
three 
miles.  
Wis. Stat. § 236.02(5). 
 
¶60 In 1945 the legislature created Wis. Stat. § 236.143, 
relating to the subdivision of land outside the limits of 
incorporated cities or villages in counties having a population 
of 500,000.  This section, now repealed, was important, in part 
because it gave the state's most populous county power to 
"regulate, restrict, and in specific areas prohibit the division 
or subdivision of land within the county outside the limits of 
incorporated cities or villages."  § 2, ch. 218, Laws of 1945 
(emphasis added).  The section supplemented the county's 
                                                 
14 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are 
to the 1999-2000 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
4 
 
already-existing zoning power.  See Wis. Stat. § 59.97 (1945).  
Today, municipalities, as well as counties and towns, have 
authority 
to 
"prohibit 
the 
division 
of 
land" 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 236.45(2)(a) when the prohibition will carry out 
the purposes of this section.   
¶61 Former section 236.143 also contained a "Declaration 
of Legislative Intent."15  Many phrases in this declaration were 
borrowed from phrases in the zoning statute for cities.  See 
Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(a), (c) (1945).16  Much of the language in 
                                                 
15 The 1945 declaration states: 
 
The purpose of this section is to promote the 
public health, safety and the general welfare of the 
community and the regulations authorized to be made 
are designed to lessen congestion in the streets and 
highways and further the orderly layout and use of 
land; to secure safety from fire, panic and other 
dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to 
provide adequate light and air; to prevent the 
overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of 
population; 
to 
facilitate 
adequate 
provision 
for 
transportation, 
water, 
sewerage, 
schools, 
parks, 
playgrounds 
and 
other 
public 
requirements; 
to 
facilitate the further resubdivision of larger tracts 
into smaller parcels of land.  The regulations 
provided for by this section shall be made with 
reasonable consideration, among other things, of the 
character of the county with a view of conserving the 
value of buildings placed upon land, providing the 
best possible environment for human habitation, and 
for encouraging the most appropriate use of land 
throughout the county. 
Wis. Stat. § 236.143(1) (1945) (emphasis added). 
16 Wisconsin Stat. § 62.23(7)(a) and (c) read as follows: 
 
(a) Grant of power.  For the purpose of promoting 
health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the 
community, the council may by ordinance regulate and 
restrict the height, number of stories and size of 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
5 
 
that 
declaration 
was 
later 
repeated 
in 
present 
Wis. Stat. §§ 236.01 and 236.45(1) as part of the 1955 revision 
of chapter 236.  One phrase that was repeated is the phrase 
"further the orderly layout and use of land."  The majority 
                                                                                                                                                             
buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot 
that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts and 
other open spaces, the density of population, and the 
location and use of buildings, structures and land for 
trade, industry, residence or other purposes provided 
that 
there 
shall 
be 
no 
discrimination 
against 
temporary 
structures. 
 
This 
subsection 
and 
any 
ordinance, resolution or regulation, heretofore or 
hereafter enacted or adopted pursuant thereto, shall 
be liberally construed in favor of the city and as 
minimum requirements adopted for the purposes stated.  
It shall not be deemed limitation of any power 
elsewhere granted. 
 
(c) Purposes in view.  Such regulations shall be 
made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and 
designed to lessen congestion in the streets; to 
secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers; to 
promote health and the general welfare; to provide 
adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of 
land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to 
facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, 
water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public 
requirements.  Such regulations shall be made with 
reasonable consideration, among other things, of the 
character of the district and its peculiar suitability 
for particular uses, and with a view to conserving the 
value 
of 
buildings 
and 
encouraging 
the 
most 
appropriate use of land throughout such city. 
Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(a), (c) (1945). 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
6 
 
heavily relies on the "use of land" passage to support its 
analysis.17 
II 
 
¶62 The League of Wisconsin Municipalities maintained an 
active interest in land use in the early decades of the 
twentieth century.  As an example, in April 1937 the League 
published an article in its monthly magazine entitled "A 
Platting Manual For Wisconsin Municipalities," written by Arthur 
J. Rabuck.  Rabuck stated that the purpose of his manual was "to 
discuss the public interest in land subdivision and methods of 
promoting and protecting that interest."  Arthur J. Rabuck, A 
Platting Manual For Wisconsin Municipalities, The Municipality, 
Apr. 1937, at 77.  Rabuck gave multiple reasons for a growing 
interest in land subdivision.  Among the reasons he listed were 
the following: 
Premature 
subdivision 
of 
land and 
the 
haphazard 
scattering of homes are certain sources of economic 
waste due to the enormous costs for water, sewers, 
drainage, 
streets, 
police 
and 
fire 
protection, 
lighting and other services which will sooner or later 
be demanded.  The large municipalities will also be 
                                                 
17 According to the drafting file on chapter 218, Laws of 
1945, the chapter resulted from passage of 1945 Assembly Bill 
359, introduced by Rep. Milton F. Burmaster of Milwaukee County.  
The drafting file shows that the bill was requested by Milwaukee 
County and was prepared from a draft written by C. Stanley 
Perry, assistant corporation counsel for Milwaukee County.  
Reflecting Perry's original draft, the bill stated that one of 
the purposes of section 236.143 was to "further the orderly 
layout in use of land."  Perry later drafted an amendment to 
Assembly Bill 359.  The amendment changed the language to  
"orderly layout and use of land."  Id. (emphasis added).  This 
is the history of the "and use of land" language that now 
appears in Wis. Stat. §§ 236.01 and 236.45(1). 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
7 
 
confronted with the problem of rehabilitating large 
areas which are being depopulated and are rapidly 
depreciating in value due to the movement to the 
outskirts. 
. . . . 
The revision of the state platting law in 1935 is 
also a reason for renewed interest in the regulation 
of the subdivision of land. 
 
Encouragement of local planning and zoning by 
state and federal governments has resulted in a 
pronounced interest in planning on the part of local 
officials.  Numerous Wisconsin municipalities are now 
doing some planning work.  Planning, zoning, and 
subdivision regulation go hand in hand.  Some of the 
greatest strides in planning accomplishment have been 
made by means of control over the subdivision of land.  
A majority of the planning mistakes of the past can be 
traced directly to faulty subdivision practices. 
Id. (emphasis added). 
 
¶63 Rabuck urged municipalities to develop comprehensive 
plans.  He noted the extraterritorial jurisdiction already 
existing in the law.  He acknowledged that zoning was the most 
effective way of reserving land "for its most appropriate use, 
but in the absence of zoning regulations much good can be 
accomplished by discouraging the subdivision of land . . . ."  
Rabuck, supra, at 77-79.  Under the heading "Improvements May Be 
Required," 
Rabuck 
wrote 
that 
"much 
good 
can 
be 
accomplished . . . by requiring the owner or subdivider to carry 
more of the burden of his speculative efforts."  Rabuck, supra, 
at 79. 
 
¶64 The League's interest in subdivision regulation was 
heightened when Robert D. Sundby served as its legal counsel in 
the 1950s. 
III 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
8 
 
¶65 The University of Wisconsin Law School was a leading 
center for the study of land use in the years before and after 
the 1955 revision of the subdivision chapter.  This focus was 
inspired 
by 
Professor 
Jacob 
H. 
Beuscher 
(1907-1967), 
a 
charismatic scholar and advocate who had a major impact on 
Wisconsin land use law.  Beuscher influenced generations of 
lawyers and planners with his law-in-action theories, as 
expounded in the Wisconsin Law Review and other publications. 
¶66 In a memorial edition of the Law Review published 
after Beuscher's death, then United States Senator Gaylord 
Nelson wrote that Beuscher "drafted the statute creating the 
Regional 
Planning 
Commissions. 
 . . .  
He 
completed 
the 
monumental task of revising our eminent domain statute.  He was 
the backbone of our long effort to develop wise land use 
policies in Wisconsin."  In Memoriam Professor Jacob H. 
Beuscher, 1967 Wis. L. Rev. 794, 799 (Essay by Gaylord Nelson).  
In the same issue, Professor Daniel Mandelker wrote that 
Beuscher: 
always fought for an extension of the public influence 
over our natural inheritance of land, water, and 
environment. 
 . . .  
He 
taught 
us 
that 
legal 
principles in the field of land use planning gain 
meaning only from the context in which they are 
applied, and that the relationship between the legal 
structure and the way in which that structure is used 
is more important than abstract disputation about 
legal principle that has no contact with reality. 
Id. at 7 (Essay by Daniel R. Mandelker). 
¶67 Articles about land use control appeared regularly in 
the Wisconsin Law Review circa 1950.  See, e.g., Ronald D. 
Keberle, Note, Land Use—Control by Contract, 1950 Wis. L. Rev. 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
9 
 
701; 
William 
Rosenbaum, 
Note, 
Control 
of 
Land 
Through 
Contractual Provisions Designed to Prevent Waste, 1950 Wis. L. 
Rev. 716; Leon Fieldman & Robert Junig, Note, Sales of Land——
Platting Approval in Land Divisions, 1950 Wis. L. Rev. 750.  The 
latter article declared that: 
 
Private interests, 
in the 
creation 
of 
land 
subdivisions, substantially determine the character of 
a community's development.  The creation of new 
parcels of land is the critical point in determining 
how the city will grow . . . .  If the subdivider's 
plan is not in accord with community interests, the 
community is usually barred from rectifying it by 
prohibitive costs. . . .  
 
Most serious trouble can be averted if the public 
interest is represented at the creation of the new 
subdivision. 
Fieldman & Junig, supra, at 750. 
 
¶68 The student authors argued that both "the quality and 
quantity of new subdivisions should come under government 
scrutiny at this initial stage."  Id.  They explained that 
quality "refers to the way in which the land is subdivided, 
quantity, to how much land is subdivided."  Id. 
 
¶69 The students examined Wisconsin's subdivision statutes 
and concluded that chapter 236 was not adequate.  They stated 
that "The important requirement for planning is that land-
divisions be approved by governing bodies.  . . . [G]overnment 
approval should be a condition precedent to every new division 
of land."  Id. at 757.  They argued that the statutes should set 
standards on which planning bodies could base their approval or 
disapproval. 
 
"Of 
course, 
the 
most 
important 
basis 
for 
disapproval is a conflict with land use plans."  Id. at 758. 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
10 
 
 
¶70 In the early 1950s, Professor Beuscher undertook a 
study of subdivision law.  Frank L. Bixby, Note, Wis. Const. 
Art. VIII, § 1——Partial Exemption of Value as an Inducement to 
Proper Subdivision, 1953 Wis. L. Rev. 141, 141 n.2.  Shortly 
thereafter, Beuscher's former student and faculty colleague, 
Marygold Shire Melli, produced a comprehensive scholarly study 
entitled Subdivision Control in Wisconsin, which made the case 
for 
a 
thoroughgoing 
revision 
of 
Wisconsin's 
subdivision 
statutes.  1953 Wis. L. Rev. 389. 
 
¶71 On the first page of her 68-page article, Melli 
explained that: 
 
Subdivision 
control, 
the 
regulation 
of 
the 
division of raw land into building lots, is a vital 
component of land-use control. . . .   [C]ontrol of 
[the subdivision] process has become recognized as an 
integral part of any land-use planning scheme . . . . 
 
Subdivision control is, of course, only one of 
the instruments used by a community to regulate the 
use of privately owned land in the public interest.  
It is closely related to zoning control in that both 
are preventative measures intended to avert community 
blight 
and 
deterioration 
by 
requiring 
that 
new 
development proceed in defined ways and according to 
prescribed standards. . . .  
 
[S]ubdivision 
control 
is 
recognized 
as 
a 
legitimate land-use tool . . . . 
Marygold Shire Melli, Subdivision Control in Wisconsin, 1953 
Wis. L. Rev. 389, 389.   
 
¶72 So timely and persuasive was Melli's article that the 
Wisconsin Legislative Council's Judiciary Committee commenced a 
study on 
the 
"Subdivision 
and Platting of 
Land." 
 The 
Legislative Council hired Melli, and its Judiciary Committee 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
11 
 
created an Advisory Committee on Subdivision and Platting, 
chaired by Robert D. Sundby, legal counsel for the League of 
Wisconsin 
Municipalities.18 
 
According 
to 
the 
Legislative 
Council's 
report 
to 
the 
1955 
legislature, 
"All 
sections 
recommended by the advisory committee were prepared originally 
by a drafting subcommittee consisting of Mr. Sundby, the 
chairman of the committee, and M.S. Melli, the legislative 
council staff member assigned to the committee."  Report of the 
Wisconsin 
Legislative Council, Volume 
IV, 
Conclusions and 
Recommendations of the Judiciary Committee on the Subdivision 
and Platting of Land, at 9 (Jan. 1955) (hereinafter 1955 
Report).  
 
¶73 The Legislative Council report contained a lengthy 
analysis of the background and deficiencies of the existing 
subdivision chapter, together with a draft bill with notes 
                                                 
18 Robert Sundby was a 1949 graduate of the University of 
Wisconsin Law School.  He was elected to the Order of the Coif.  
1949 Wis. L. Rev. 823.  He served on the Wisconsin Law Review 
with Marygold Shire [Melli] and Daniel Mandelker.  1949 Wis. L. 
Rev. 5.  Like his classmates, he was likely a student of Jacob 
Beuscher. 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
12 
 
accompanying each section.19  The report set out six explicit 
objectives of the study and the draft legislation.  1955 Report, 
supra, at 11-23.  These included: Objective I: To formulate 
legislation which would provide some control over the quality of 
subdivision, and Objective V: To evaluate all of the burdens 
placed upon the subdivider with particular regard to the 
individual's rights to the use of his land.  Id. (emphasis 
added). 
 
¶74 Although 
the report 
did 
not emphasize 
municipal 
control over land use in adjacent unincorporated land, it 
acknowledged that "[c]ontrol over the way in which a land owner 
divides up his land, i.e., control over the type of development 
he may make, is one of the most contested areas of subdivision 
control."  Id. at 12.  The report stated: 
 
Minimum standards for the quality of subdivisions 
raise an important question regarding the extent of 
control.  If the subdivision statute is intended to 
control 
land 
use 
development, 
then 
it 
follows 
theoretically that perhaps all divisions of land, at 
least those which create parcels big enough to be 
built upon, should be controlled.  . . .  
                                                 
19 The 1955 Report stated that "the committee was very 
fortunate in having the advice and assistance of an advisory 
committee 
consisting 
of 
representatives 
of 
a 
number 
of 
organizations interested in the subject matter of the study."  
Preface to the Report of the Wisconsin Legislative Council, 
Volume IV, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Judiciary 
Committee on the Subdivision and Platting of Land, (Jan. 1955).  
Wisconsin towns did not have an official representative on the 
advisory committee.  The report further stated that "there were 
a number of individuals who attended committee meetings and 
contributed 
much 
to 
the 
committee 
considerations." 
 
Id.  
Professor J.H. Beuscher of the University of Wisconsin Law 
School was listed among these individuals.  Id. 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
13 
 
 
Under present law, local units of government may 
control all divisions of land.  § 236.143(2) of the 
present law grants power to them to regulate the 
division or subdivision of land.  . . .  
 
The committee recommends that the present law be 
retained, i.e., that the local units of government 
have the option of controlling all land divisions.  
See § 236.45 of the proposed revision.  . . .  
 
The committee also recommends changes in the 
definition of subdivision which should increase the 
extent of control of the state statute to a limited 
degree.  . . .  The committee recommends 2 changes in 
this definition: an increase from one to 5 years in 
the time involved and an enlargement of the purpose of 
division to sale or building development. 
Id. at 14-15 (emphasis added). 
 
¶75 The Legislative Council bill was introduced as Senate 
Bill 20.  Robert Sundby and Jacob Beuscher testified in both 
houses in support of the bill.  Senate Bill 20 passed with few 
changes to become Chapter 570, Laws of 1955. 
IV 
 
¶76 Chapter 236 of the statutes was amended by four 
different bills in the 1957 session of the legislature.  
Chapters 88, 237, 245, & 599, Laws of 1957.  These were the 
first 
of 
many 
refinements 
to 
the 
chapter 
following 
the 
comprehensive revision in 1955.  Among the first changes was an 
amendment 
to 
condition 
a 
municipality's 
extraterritorial 
jurisdiction on its adoption of a "subdivision ordinance or an 
official 
map." 
 
See 
§ 2, 
ch. 
599, 
Laws 
of 
1957; 
Wis. Stat. § 236.10(1)(b)2. 
 
¶77 In 1959 Marygold Melli co-authored a law review 
article with planner Robert S. Devoy.  The article was entitled 
Extraterritorial Planning and Urban Growth, 1959 Wis. L. Rev. 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
14 
 
55.  Melli explained that "preparation for the future growth of 
the community is called land use planning; it should consist not 
only of the plans and policies for the future, but also of the 
means to protect those plans."  Id. at 55. 
 
¶78 Extraterritorial planning controls are "powers given 
to cities and villages providing them with some control over the 
type of development in unincorporated areas on their immediate 
fringe."  Id. at 56.  This is an unusual type of power, she 
reasoned, "since a municipal corporation is generally required 
to act within its own boundaries."  Id. 
 
Ideally, if extraterritorial planning is to be 
fully effective it should embrace all the controls 
available to the community.  Therefore, it should be 
based upon a comprehensive, enforceable master plan 
and should include the power to zone, to control 
subdivision, to establish building setbacks, and to 
protect plans for future streets, playgrounds, parks 
and other recreational facilities. 
 
In Wisconsin, a municipality may adopt a master 
plan covering any area beyond the municipal boundaries 
related to the development of the municipality.  In 
addition, specific grants of extraterritorial power 
have been made by the legislature for subdivision 
approval and official maps to cover certain limited 
areas.  Zoning remains the major field in which no 
extraterritorial power has been granted. 
Id. (emphasis added). 
 
¶79 Melli argued in favor of extraterritorial zoning.  
"The principal shortcoming of extraterritorial controls in 
Wisconsin 
results 
from 
the 
fact 
that 
there 
is 
no 
extraterritorial zoning authority.  The power to zone, to 
control the actual use to be made of the land, is probably the 
most important single land use control."  Id. at 66. 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
15 
 
 
¶80 Melli acknowledged that "the power to control new 
subdivisions and to map new streets is much less effective" 
without a concomitant power to zone.  Id.  Nonetheless, she 
stated that the right to approve the way in which undeveloped 
land is divided for urban use was one of the most important 
powers a municipality possessed.  Id. at 59.  She noted that 
cities "may exercise subdivision control for 3 miles outside 
their corporate limits."  Id.  "The principal limitation on 
subdivision approval as a land use control is its territorial 
scope."  Id. at 60. 
 
¶81 Melli's article was accompanied by an article by 
Robert D. Sundby entitled The Elimination and Prevention of 
Urban Blight, 1959 Wis. L. Rev. 73.  In the course of his 
article, Sundby stated that among the factors that contribute to 
urban blight are "the overcrowding of land, poor layout and use 
of land, and inadequate provision for water, sewerage, and 
drainage."  Id. at 92.  "These factors may be controlled by the 
adoption and enforcement of adequate subdivision regulations."  
Id.  He added: 
 
The state law regulates only subdivisions where 
the act of division creates 5 or more parcels or 
building sites of 1 1/2 acres or less in area, or 
where 5 or more such parcels are created by successive 
divisions within a period of five years.  The state 
law is therefore subject to considerable evasion 
through the process 
of 
division 
and 
redivision.  
However, the statute authorizes cities, villages, 
towns, 
and 
counties 
to 
adopt 
local 
subdivision 
ordinances, provides that such ordinances may include 
provisions regulating divisions of land into parcels 
larger than 1 1/2 acres or divisions of land into less 
than 5 parcels.  Thus, municipalities are given ample 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
16 
 
authority to control any division whatsoever for 
purposes of sale or building development. 
Id. at 92-93. 
 
¶82 In the years following the 1955 revision of chapter 
236, the Legislative Council's Urban Problems Committee studied 
the need for additional land use controls in unincorporated 
areas.  Part of this discussion was recounted later by then 
court of appeals Judge Robert D. Sundby in Gordie Boucher 
Lincoln-Mercury v. Madison Plan Commission, 178 Wis. 2d 74, 503 
N.W.2d 205 (1993).  Writing for the court, Sundby noted that the 
legislature had approved a statute on extraterritorial zoning, 
Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7a).  See ch. 241, Laws of 1963.  However, 
that statute did not give a municipality unilateral authority to 
zone land in an unincorporated town within the municipality's 
extraterritorial jurisdiction.  Rather, the statute "require[d] 
that extraterritorial zoning be a cooperative effort of the city 
plan commission and the town in which the zoning ordinance will 
be in effect."  Gordie Boucher, 178 Wis. 2d at 100-101.  Judge 
Sundby wrote that the Urban Problems Committee "rejected a 
proposal 
giving 
populous 
counties 
authority 
to 
adopt 
comprehensive zoning ordinances which would apply throughout the 
unincorporated areas without the approval of the individual 
towns."  Id. at 101.  Hence, he concluded, "[w]hile ch. 
236 . . . and 
sec. 
236.45 . . . confer 
broad 
regulatory 
authority upon local governing bodies, that authority relates to 
the quality of the subdivision or land division and not to the 
use to which the lots in the subdivision or land division may be 
put."  Id. (emphasis added). 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
17 
 
V 
 
¶83 In 1967, the year that he died, Professor Beuscher 
authored a remarkable summation of his views on "Land Use 
Controls."  His report, which was published as part of the 
Wisconsin Development Series by the Wisconsin Department of 
Resource Development, focused on legal means to achieve land use 
planning 
goals. 
 
Beuscher 
spelled 
out 
his 
law-in-action 
philosophy with disarming candor: 
[M]any planners and lawyers tend to compartmentalize 
governmental powers first into the major areas of: 
power of eminent domain, power of taxation, power of 
appropriation, and police power.  Then the major plan 
implementation police power tools, such as zoning, 
subdivision control, and official mapping, are broken 
out and often dealt with as if they existed apart from 
the whole fabric of governmental power.  So that 
comprehensive areawide planning may be successfully 
implemented, the entire range of police power controls 
must 
be 
effectively 
coordinated 
one 
with 
another . . . to deal in the public's interest.  In 
short, a more unitary concept of the entire range of 
sovereign powers of the state must be developed. 
J.H. Beuscher, Land Use Controls I-1 (Dep't of Res. Dev., Wis. 
Dev. Series, 1967). 
 
¶84 Professor Beuscher took pains to educate his readers 
on the scope of land use planning goals, including placement of 
development 
and 
pacing 
of 
development, 
as 
well 
as 
the 
preservation of open space.  Id. at I-2.  "It seems clear," he 
wrote, "that the placing of development and the control of 
alternative uses of land are necessary from an economic 
standpoint to insure the wisest use of scarce resources and 
adequately to protect the health, safety and general welfare of 
the community."  Id. at I-3.  "Governmental services and 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
18 
 
facilities must be provided to each new subdivision and to each 
new resident of the community.  Since there is a limit to the 
availability of tax dollars . . . the pacing of development 
becomes critically important in rapidly growing urban regions. 
 . . .  [T]he process of growth must be paced over time."  Id. 
 
¶85 Beuscher pointedly advocated many changes in the 
planning 
statutes 
to 
effect 
more 
complete 
control 
of 
development.  But in the absence of such changes, he urged 
tough-minded utilization of the tools at hand.  "The time for a 
return to simple fundamentals is long overdue.  The focus should 
not 
be 
on 
the 
niceties, 
the 
subtleties, 
the 
particular 
limitations and potentials of individual legal tools.  The focus 
should be on the accomplishment of the community objectives 
themselves as expressed in properly prepared development plans."  
Id. at II-2.  Why "must it be one control tool or another or one 
government power or another?" he asked.  "Why not greater use of 
two or more in combination?"  Id. at II-3. 
 
¶86 In Section IV of his Report, Beuscher discussed the 
Master 
Plan——the 
"physical 
plan" 
contemplated 
in 
Wis. Stat. § 62.23(2).  Then he asked: 
Is a master plan a mere guide to the local planning 
agency and governing body, or is it in some respects 
in and of itself a legally binding land use control? 
 
Wis. Stat. § 62.23, reflecting the philosophy of 
the Standard Planning Act of 1928, seems on its face 
to contain the answer when it provides in subsection 
(3) that: "The purpose and effect of the adoption and 
certifying of the master plan or part thereof shall be 
solely to aid the city plan commission and the council 
in the performance of their duties."  The fact that no 
public hearing on the proposed master plan is required 
and that it need be approved only by the plan 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
19 
 
commission and not by the local legislative body seems 
to be further evidence that the plan is intended only 
for informal guidance, not for regulatory control. 
 
Nevertheless, from the outset adoption of a 
master plan has had one regulatory effect.  Once the 
plan is adopted by the plan commission, the local 
governing body may not act finally on a variety of 
specified public improvement projects until the matter 
has first been referred to the plan commission and 
until the commission after consideration has reported. 
 
In 
rewriting 
Wis. 
Stats. 
Chapter 
236, 
the 
subdivision code, in 1955, the Legislature provided: 
 
Approval 
of 
the 
preliminary 
or 
final 
(subdivision) plat shall be conditioned upon 
compliance with: . . . (c) any local master 
plan or official map; . . .  
 
The extent or validity of the requirement that a 
subdivision plat comply with a local master plan has 
not been tested before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  
Involved is the technical issue of whether the 
Legislature 
intended 
to 
delegate 
to 
the 
plan 
commission a legislative and a regulatory function so 
far as concerns master plans.  If the Legislature had 
this intention, was the delegation valid under the 
14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution, which 
imposes an obligation on states that property not be 
taken "without due process of law." 
Beuscher, supra, at IV-23. 
¶87 Beuscher counseled that it would "strengthen [the case 
for the plan] if the local governing body indicated its approval 
of the master plan."  Id.  "Undoubtedly, also as a practical 
matter, it would help to show that, though not required by the 
statute, a public hearing on the proposed master plan was, as a 
matter of fact, held after due notice before either the plan 
commission or the governing body or both."  Id. 
¶88 Returning 
to 
subdivision 
regulation, 
Beuscher 
emphasized 
that 
besides 
zoning, 
"[a] 
subdivision 
control 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
20 
 
ordinance is another important device which can be used to 
regulate and order the placing of development."  Id. at VII-13. 
The private developer seeks the benefit of recording 
his lots for ease of sale; he contemplates that the 
public 
will 
assume 
the 
long-run 
maintenance 
of 
streets, sewers, and water lines; he will undoubtedly 
affect the community tax base and alter existing 
governmental service functions and their costs; and 
the initial decisions of location, lot size, street 
width, type of housing, will undoubtedly establish an 
indelible pattern of land use that will affect the 
community for generations to come.  In addition, the 
state is interested in secure real estate descriptions 
to prevent fraud and conflict; and mortgage lenders 
are interested in the long-term stability of the new 
neighborhood which is being established.  For any or 
all of these reasons, the body public is justified in 
regulating 
the 
process 
of 
subdividing 
and 
in 
establishing those reasonable conditions upon which 
plat approval will be granted. 
. . . Difficulties arise in determining what are 
reasonable conditions. . . .  Courts will be moved to 
accept those conditions which sound planning and 
empirical and analytical evidence justify.  They will 
reject those conditions which appear to overreach, 
rely on erroneous or incomplete data, or which are 
simply stalling tactics designed to slow down or 
prevent development. 
. . . Theoretically, one could argue that all 
costs associated with the development should be borne 
by the private developer and passed on to his buyers, 
who after all are seeking to profit from his decision 
to subdivide.  There should be no hidden subsidy to 
the developer or to his buyers in the form of 
community 
absorption 
of 
development 
costs.  
Practically, it is not possible to push the conditions 
for plat approval this far.  First of all, it is often 
very 
difficult 
to 
determine 
the 
true 
costs 
of 
development.  After the major cost items of street, 
water, and sewer have been settled, cost determination 
can 
become 
a 
very 
speculative 
process. 
 . . .  
Therefore, the conditions imposed for plat approval 
must 
be 
reasonable; 
but 
the 
definition 
of 
reasonableness 
may 
be 
expanded 
by 
comprehensive 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
21 
 
planning and the presentation of data that justify the 
particular challenged set of conditions or condition. 
Id. at VII-13, 14 (emphasis added). 
VI 
 
¶89 Today, to entitle the plat of a subdivision within the 
extraterritorial plat approval jurisdiction of a municipality to 
be recorded, it must have the approval of (1) the town board, 
(2) the governing body of the municipality (if the municipality 
has adopted a subdivision ordinance or an official map), and (3) 
the county planning agency.  Wis. Stat. § 236.10(1)(b). 
 
¶90 A landowner seeking to subdivide land submits a 
proposed plat to all authorities whose approval is required.  
Wis. Stat. §§ 236.11, 236.12.  Approval of the preliminary or 
final plat shall be conditioned upon compliance with: (a) the 
provisions of chapter 236, (b) any municipal, town or county 
ordinance, 
and 
(c) 
a 
comprehensive 
plan. 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 236.13(1).  The law was slightly different before January 1, 
2000.  The former subsection (c) required compliance with any 
local master plan consistent with any plan adopted under 
Wis. Stat. § 236.46 
or 
official 
map 
adopted 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 62.23. 
 
¶91 Wisconsin Stat. § 236.11(1)(b) contains the flip side 
of Wis. Stat. § 236.13(1).  It provides that if "the final plat 
conforms 
substantially 
to 
the 
preliminary 
plat 
as 
approved . . . and to local plans and ordinances adopted or 
authorized 
by 
law, 
it 
is 
entitled 
to 
approval."  
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
22 
 
Wis. Stat. § 236.11(1)(b) (emphasis added).20  Implicit in this 
formulation is a counter principle: If a plat does not conform 
to local plans and ordinances adopted as authorized by law, it 
is not entitled to approval.   
 
¶92 The purpose of subdivision regulation is broadly 
stated in Wis. Stat. §§ 236.01 and 236.45(1) and includes "to 
further 
the 
orderly 
layout 
and 
use 
of 
land."21  
Wis. Stat. §§ 236.01, 236.45(1).   
 
¶93 Local governments are authorized to adopt "ordinances 
governing the subdivision or other division of land which are 
more 
restrictive 
than 
the 
provisions 
of 
this 
chapter."  
Wis. Stat. § 236.45(2) 
(emphasis 
added). 
 
These 
"more 
restrictive" ordinances apply to divisions and subdivisions of 
land 
in 
a 
municipality's 
extraterritorial 
plat 
approval 
jurisdiction.  Wis. Stat. § 236.45(3). 
 
¶94 A "more restrictive" ordinance may apply to any 
division of land, either greater than or less than 5 parcels.  
Wis. Stat. § 236.45(2)(a).  It may "prohibit the division of 
land" in areas where such prohibition will carry out the 
purposes of the section.  Id.  Wisconsin Stat. § 236.45 and any 
subdivision ordinance adopted under it "shall be liberally 
construed in favor of the municipality . . . and shall not be 
deemed a limitation or repeal of any requirement or power 
                                                 
20 The language on "local plans and ordinances" was added to 
the law by a Dane County legislator, Representative Jonathan 
Barry, in 1980.  See ch. 238, Laws of 1979. 
21 For the history of this language, see footnote 3 of this 
concurrence. 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
23 
 
granted or appearing in this chapter or elsewhere, relating to 
the subdivision of lands." Wis. Stat. § 236.45(2)(b). 
 
¶95 Given the plain language of the chapter and the 
extensive legislative history behind this language, it cannot 
reasonably be argued that Madison violated either the letter or 
the spirit of the statute when it failed to approve the Woods' 
plat.  The Woods' land was and still is zoned as agricultural 
land.  Both this land and much of the surrounding land are still 
used as agricultural land.  Thus, the proposed commercial use of 
the Woods' land is in fact inconsistent with the City's master 
plan.  Moreover, the City raised legitimate quality questions 
about the provision of sewers and the adequacy of roads if the 
land were put to commercial use.  In short, the proposed 
subdivision violated the City's master plan and its subdivision 
ordinance.  The Woods are not in a position to challenge 
Madison's 
subdivision 
ordinance 
as 
applied 
because 
their 
position is so vulnerable to criticism.  The City was not 
overreaching in this case. 
VII 
 
¶96 Clearly, the City of Madison has adopted the strategy 
suggested by Professor Beuscher and utilized every possible tool 
short of extraterritorial zoning to enforce its position on land 
use planning.  It has adopted a very far-reaching subdivision 
ordinance.  The legislature has directed courts to liberally 
construe this ordinance and similar ordinances, as well as all 
the provisions of chapter 236. 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
24 
 
 
¶97 There is a point, however, at which the legislature's 
grant of authority to Madison and other municipalities to 
actually control land use extraterritorially comes to an end, 
unless these municipalities have exercised lawful authority to 
zone the land.  The court of appeals concluded in the Gordie 
Boucher case that this point had been reached. 
 
¶98 In Gordie Boucher, the City of Madison Plan Commission 
was asked to approve a certified survey map (CSM) of a land 
division 
in 
Madison's 
extraterritorial 
plat 
approval 
jurisdiction.  It refused to do so on grounds that Gordie 
Boucher's plans for an automobile dealership on a proposed 12.2 
acre site on part of the subdivided property was inconsistent 
with the City's Peripheral Area Development Plan, which created 
a Permanent Open Space District.  Gordie Boucher, 178 Wis. 2d at 
80-82. 
 
¶99 The court of appeals explained that the proposed 
Gordie Boucher land was part of a 41.25 acre parcel that was 
being subdivided into four lots.  The specific lot in question 
was adjacent to U.S. Highway 151 on the west and to an 
established landfill on the east.  It had been zoned C-2 
commercial for more than 30 years.  Id. at 82.  The town of 
Burke had conditionally approved the CSM and the Dane County 
Zoning 
and 
Natural 
Resources 
Committee 
had 
conditionally 
approved the CSM.  Id. at 82-83.  But the Madison Plan 
Commission balked and rejected the CSM.  Id. at 83. 
 
¶100 Although the Plan Commission gave five reasons for its 
action, the essence of its disapproval was that (1) the proposed 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
25 
 
survey was not consistent with the City's Master Plan, including 
the Peripheral Area Development Plan, the Land Use Plan, and the 
Parks and Open Space Plan, and (2) the certified survey map was 
inconsistent with the Plan Commission's policy for agriculture 
and non-agriculture land divisions.  The Plan Commission relied 
exclusively on the master plan rationale when the case reached 
the court of appeals.  Id. 
 
¶101 The circuit court, Moria Krueger, Judge, rejected the 
City's 
reasons 
on 
grounds 
that 
Madison 
was 
effectively 
attempting to rezone the lot to agriculture through planning and 
subdivision ordinances when the lot had been zoned commercial 
for many years.  The circuit court ruled that the City's Master 
Plan could not override Dane County's zoning ordinance.  Id. at 
90. 
 
¶102 The court of appeals agreed.  In a unanimous opinion 
written by Judge Sundby, the court ruled that: 
 
[T]he legislature has not given the city's master 
plan, 
a 
planning 
tool, 
pre-eminence over 
county 
zoning, 
a 
regulatory 
tool. . . . 
 
There 
is 
no 
authority for the commission's contention that a 
county zoning ordinance is subordinate to the city's 
master plan.  We reject the commission's contention; 
it has no support in the statutes or case law. 
Id. at 90-91. 
 
¶103 This analysis was and is unassailable.  It does not 
require reliance on treatises unrelated to the peculiarities of 
Wisconsin law.  It is fundamental Wisconsin law. 
 
¶104 There can be no dispute that the legislature has given 
Wisconsin municipalities expansive subdivision regulatory powers 
to encourage broad land use objectives and sometimes to enforce 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
26 
 
them. 
 
It 
has 
given 
municipalities 
substantial 
planning 
authority, even beyond three miles of the municipality.  But it 
has not authorized municipalities to——in effect——rezone land by 
means 
of 
extraterritorial 
subdivision 
regulation 
and/or 
extraterritorial planning.  It has not given municipalities 
power to veto uses of land that are consistent with lawful 
existing 
zoning, 
absent 
reasonable 
quality 
concerns 
or 
subdivision defects.  That is what Gordie Boucher held, and 
there is no reason to overrule the case. 
 
¶105 The very existence of extraterritorial zoning, as set 
out in Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7a), constitutes a clear expression of 
legislative intent.  This court is not at liberty to ignore the 
mechanism the legislature has designed for extraterritorial 
zoning.22 
                                                 
22 Wisconsin Stat. § 62.23(7a) establishes exacting, special 
procedures by which a city may zone land in its extraterritorial 
zoning jurisdiction.  In addition to complying with any 
applicable general zoning requirements found in § 62.23(7), a 
city's governing body must, by adoption of a resolution that 
specifies the area to be zoned, promptly declare through precise 
notice requirements its intention to prepare a comprehensive 
zoning ordinance.  Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7a)(a). 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
27 
 
VIII 
 
¶106 The 
majority opinion 
heavily relies 
on selected 
passages in two legislative declarations of policy to support 
its conclusion that a municipality may control the ultimate use 
of land in its extraterritorial plat approval jurisdiction 
through the rejection of new plats.  In particular, the majority 
points to the following language: (1) The purpose of chapter 236 
and the purpose of section 236.45 is, in part, "to further the 
orderly layout and use of land."  Majority op., ¶¶13, 17 
                                                                                                                                                             
More important, when a city plan commission formulates a 
zoning restriction, a joint extraterritorial zoning committee is 
established.  This committee consists of three members of the 
city plan commission and three town members from any town 
affected by the proposal.  Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7a)(c).  The joint 
committee 
prepares 
the 
zoning 
plan 
and 
regulations, 
or 
amendments 
thereto, 
in 
conjunction 
with 
the 
city 
plan 
commission.  Id.  However, only the members of the joint 
committee may vote on matters relating to the extraterritorial 
zoning plan and regulations.  Id.  Accordingly, "The governing 
body shall not adopt the proposed plan and regulations, or 
amendments thereto, unless [the proposals] receive a favorable 
vote of a majority of the 6 members of the joint committee."  
Id.  In short, the statute enables the governing body of a city 
to adopt only zoning that has been recommended by the joint 
committee, and only after public notice and a public hearing on 
the proposal.  § 62.23(7a)(e). 
As a practical matter, the statute provides that a town's 
land may not be zoned extraterritorially unless at least one 
representative of the affected town concurs with a city’s 
proposed plan or regulations.  No unilateral action by the city 
is permitted.  Had the City of Madison attempted to rezone land 
within the Woods' plat by exercising its subdivision regulation 
authority, without undergoing the processes of § 62.23(7a), it 
would necessarily have contravened both the letter and the 
spirit of this specific, enabling statute.  The harmonization of 
a city’s extraterritorial subdivision authority with these 
extraterritorial zoning provisions was respected by the Gordie 
Boucher decision, but ignored by the majority in this case. 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
28 
 
(quoting Wis. Stat. §§ 236.01 and 236.45(1), respectively); (2) 
"The regulations provided for by this section shall be made with 
reasonable 
consideration . . . of 
the 
character 
of 
the 
municipality, town or county . . . for encouraging the most 
appropriate 
use 
of 
land." 
 
Majority 
op., 
¶17 
(quoting 
Wis. Stat. § 236.45(1)). 
 
¶107 This reliance is suspect for several reasons.  First, 
sections or subsections that are labeled as declarations of 
purpose or declarations of legislative intent are different from 
sections or subsections that clearly grant power.  As an 
example, Wis. Stat. §§ 236.01 and 236.45(1) should be compared 
to Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(a), a provision which clearly grants 
power. 
 
¶108 Second, 
the 
language 
in 
the 
declarations 
is 
conditional language.  To illustrate, both declarations list a 
purpose to "further the orderly layout and use of land."  To 
"further" something is to "help the progress of" or "advance" 
something.  The American Heritage Dictionary of The English 
Language 737 (3d ed. 1992).  It does not imply control of 
something.  Moreover, the word "orderly" modifies "use," just as 
"orderly" modifies "layout."  Furthering the orderly use of land 
is different from controlling the use of land. 
 
¶109 Looking at the other language relied upon, we see the 
terms "reasonable consideration" and "encouraging the most 
appropriate use of land."  "Reasonable" implies that not all 
"consideration" will pass muster.  "Encourage" is a conditional 
verb like "further," different from "control" or "effect."  
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
29 
 
These words do not connote the unlimited subdivision regulatory 
authority the majority appears to embrace.  This is especially 
evident when all the passages relied upon are returned to the 
context from which they have been taken.23 
 
¶110 Third, the very existence of conditional words in the 
declarations recognizes the limits on subdivision regulation and 
the need to harmonize it with zoning, both extraterritorial and 
otherwise.  Zoning, like subdivision regulation, is an exercise 
of the police power.  When a municipality is given statutory 
authority to pass a subdivision ordinance to "promote the public 
health, safety, and general welfare of the community"——words 
reflective of the police power——the municipality is not thereby 
given authority to include explicit zoning in the subdivision 
ordinance. 
 
¶111 The certified question before this court is stated by 
the majority: "Does Wis. Stat. ch. 236 authorize a municipality 
to 
reject 
a 
preliminary 
plat 
under 
its 
extraterritorial 
jurisdictional authority based on a subdivision ordinance that 
considers the plat's proposed use?"  Majority op. at ¶2.  The 
key word in this question is "reject."  The obvious answer to 
the question is "sometimes," depending upon the facts and 
whether the rejection is "reasonable."  There is no absolute 
"yes" or "no" answer.  A municipality may not seek to compel a 
                                                 
23 "[I]t is . . . well established that courts must not look 
at a single, isolated sentence or portion of a sentence, but at 
the role of the relevant language in the entire statute."  
Alberte v. Anew Health Care Servs., 2000 WI 7, ¶10, 232 Wis. 2d 
587, 605 N.W.2d 515 (citing Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 
U.S. 41, 51 (1987)). 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
30 
 
particular land use that contradicts a validly enacted zoning 
ordinance 
by 
arbitrarily 
rejecting 
a 
plat 
under 
the 
extraterritorial component of its subdivision ordinance.  This 
is the core teaching of the Gordie Boucher case.24   
 
¶112 "Consider" is not the key word in the certified 
question.  The majority opinion observes that "any regulation 
relating to the 'quality' of a subdivision must necessarily 
consider 'the most appropriate use' of land.  We cannot fathom 
how an ordinance can consider the most appropriate use of land 
if it cannot consider the use of land."  Majority op. at ¶30 
(emphasis added).  Of course, a platting authority may consider 
the use of land, but it may not impose an authorized end by an 
unauthorized means.  The certified question is not the correct 
question because it is not a question susceptible to a precise 
answer. 
 
¶113 Judge Robert Sundby was an architect of the Wisconsin 
subdivision 
statute. 
 
He 
was 
a 
zealous 
advocate 
of 
municipalities.  The majority's failure to acknowledge Judge 
Sundby's pivotal role in reforming chapter 236 of the Wisconsin 
Statutes is surprising.  In Gordie Boucher, Judge Sundby 
faithfully applied the provisions of chapter 236, including Wis. 
Stat. § 236.45 in pari materia with Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7a). 
                                                 
24 A municipality may condition its approval of a plat on 
the plat's compliance with the municipality's master plan, but 
the municipality may not enforce a master plan that exceeds its 
authority.  In addition, a municipality may not block an 
otherwise valid subdivision until, say, the subdivider donates 
75 percent of the land to the public. 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
31 
 
 
¶114 Even 
scholars 
who 
have 
sought 
to 
minimize 
the 
distinction 
between 
subdivision 
control 
and 
zoning 
have 
understood and respected the distinction.  Marygold Melli wrote 
forthrightly that "Zoning relates to the type of building 
development which can take place on the land; subdivision 
control relates to the way in which the land is divided and made 
ready for building development."  Melli, Subdivision Control in 
Wisconsin, 1953 Wis. L. Rev. 389, 389. 
 
¶115 Professor Beuscher, a tireless advocate for land use 
planning, nonetheless was careful to recognize property rights: 
 
Though 
planning 
and 
plan 
implementation 
of 
necessity focus on public needs and desires, it is 
important to be aware of and understand private 
property rights which exist and are protected by both 
the federal and state constitutions.  The goal of the 
courts as arbiter between the public actions which are 
in conflict with or encroach upon alleged private 
property rights has been to strike a balance——a 
balance which will on one hand allow needed public 
programs to be carried out and at the same time 
preserve as large a sphere as possible within which 
the private decision-maker and private property rights 
may be exercised. 
Beuscher, Land Use Controls, supra, at I-2. 
 
¶116 Beuscher also wrote that "it must be conceded that 
literal application of the requirement that the subdivision 
comply with the approved master plan would violate the 14th 
Amendment in some instances . . . because the regulatory impact 
on the particular landowner [would be] so great as to constitute 
an invalid taking of property in his case."  Id. at IV-23.  "If 
the plan commission stands pat and refuses to approve the plat 
and the council does not buy or condemn the land, the owner may 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
32 
 
be left in the position of not being able to earn a fair return 
on his land; and a court would probably declare the application 
of the master plan unconstitutional."  Id. (emphasis added).  A 
subdivision ordinance may be unconstitutional as applied to 
specific facts.25 
 
¶117 The City of Madison has repeatedly shown hostility to 
unapproved development in its extraterritorial plat approval 
jurisdiction. 
 
Consequently, 
a 
subdivider 
in 
Madison's 
extraterritorial jurisdiction will have to submit meticulous 
quality plats if it hopes to prevail in the face of City 
opposition. 
 
¶118 I am authorized to state that JUSTICE JON P. WILCOX 
and JUSTICE DIANE S. SYKES join this concurrence. 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
25 The Woods have not advanced an argument relating to the 
constitutionality of Madison’s rejection of their plat and, 
therefore, the parties did not brief this issue. 
No. 01-1206.dtp 
 
 
 
1