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

Heading: Statutory area of permissible protest.

Text: Appellants argue that the 100-foot boundary line prescribed by sec. 62.23 (7) (d), Stats., should be construed as extending 100 feet from the outermost limits of the land owned by the party seeking a zoning change, rather than from the land for which the zoning is sought. Realizing the need for extra diligence in the amending of zoning regulations, the legislature has set forth in sec. 62.23 (7) (d), Stats., a procedure whereby certain specified landowners may protest the enactment of zoning changes. In part it provides: . . . In case of a protest against such change, duly signed and acknowledged by the owners of 20% or more either of the areas of the land included in such proposed change, or by the owners of 20% or more of the area of the land immediately adjacent extending 100 feet  therefrom, or by the owners of 20% or more of the land directly opposite thereto extending 100 feet from the street frontage of such opposite land, such amendment shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of three-fourths of the members of the council. . . . The above provision was construed in the case of Prescher v. Wauwatosa (1967), 34 Wis. 2d 421, 149 N. W. 2d 541, where this court held that only landowners adjacent to the land where the proposed change is to be made, and not those adjacent to the borders of a whole zoning district in which a specific area is being rezoned, are to be considered as valid protesters under the statute. The court set forth the policy considerations which precluded the statute from embracing the district concept there argued for: . . . The purpose of sec. 62.23 (7) [d], Stats., was to permit protest by landowners directly affected by zoning changes. Landowners whose property borders on land to be rezoned are directly affected because their land value and enjoyment of their property decreases. People on the periphery of areas to be rezoned are not so directly affected. . . . Prescher v. Wauwatosa, supra, at page 431. (Emphasis supplied.) Here, CAM had on the south and west left a strip 150-foot wide zoned completely consistent with the areas bordering it, namely, single family residential housing. Protest statutes similar to sec. 62.23 (7) (d) of the Wisconsin statutes are common to several states and the district concept has always been rejected. In North Carolina the district concept was rejected in the following cases: Penny v. Durham (1959), 249 N. C. 596, 107 S. E. 2d 72; Armstrong v. McInnis (1965), 264 N. C. 616, 142 S. E. 2d 670; and Heaton v. Charlotte (1971), 277 N. C. 506, 178 S. E. 2d 352. In each case the developer sought rezoning of a large tract of land from single family residential to commercial and/or multi-family  residential. In each case the developer insulated his request for change by leaving a buffer area of from 100 to 150 feet between the area to be rezoned and the surrounding community. In each case the North Carolina court in construing their statute rejected the protesters' contentions. The court in Heaton v. Charlotte, supra, at page 527, quoted from 1 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning (3d ed. 1969), ch. 28, sec. 28-[11], where it stated that: `. . . [W]here an applicant for a zoning change seeks to avoid the necessity of a larger than majority vote by creating a buffer zone of 100 feet between that portion of his property sought to be rezoned and the lands of adjacent property owners, such action is valid and avoids the requirement of such larger vote.' The use of buffer zones has also been sustained by the New York courts. In Miner v. Yonkers (1959), 19 Misc. 2d 321, 189 N. Y. Supp. 2d 762, affirmed, 9 App. Div. 2d 907, 195 N. Y. Supp. 2d 242, a 200-foot space was left between an area rezoned for department store purposes, and the remainder of the district was devoted to multifamily residential uses. The trial court's conclusion that the 150-foot strip on the west and south sides of the tract, which remained zoned RS-2, does legally eliminate the right of property owners adjacent to the outside boundaries of the whole property from being legal protesters under sec. 62.23 (7) (d), Stats., is correct.