Opinion ID: 1828424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Annual district meeting resolution.

Text: The appellants contend that the resolution passed at the district school meeting on July 29, 1969, some fourteen months prior to the date of the adoption of the ordinance, was sufficient to block any rezoning in the  future by anything less than a three-quarters or six-to-one vote by the village board. Appellants' contentions on this point have again already been considered and rejected by this court in Prescher v. Wauwatosa, supra . In that case, one Grede filed a protest to a proposed rezoning. A few days later, the proposed rezoning was modified slightly and resubmitted. Grede then did not file a protest although he was given an opportunity to do so. The trial court held that, because the two proposed rezonings were so similar, the objection to the first one should stand as an objection to the second. This court reversed, noting at page 429: Grede was tendered an opportunity to protest and could have done so by the simple act of signing his name. The written protest tendered to Grede contained a precise statement of what the proposed second ordinance was designed to do, and he declined to sign it. . . . A protester should not be permitted to tie up an entire legislative process by filing a general protest at a given point in time. It is true that sec. 62.23 (7) (d), Stats., is designed to protect adjacent landowners from zoning changes, and the statutes have extended a great deal of protection to such persons. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a majority of the councilmen voted for the second ordinance. Protesters are permitted to block the wishes of a simple majority, but positive action should be required. . . . The school district here was given notice of its opportunity to file a protest too. But it did not file a protest. The only reasonable presumption is that in November of 1970, the Joint School District No. 1 did not wish to file a protest, regardless of its intent back in July of 1969. We are satisfied that the resolution of the school district does not comply with the statutory requirements. Sec. 62.23 (7) (d), Stats., requires that the protest be duly signed and acknowledged by the owners. The resolution was unsigned and unacknowledged.  The trial court was correct in excluding the school district area from the 20 percent of the land directly opposite the subject property extending 100 feet from the street.