Opinion ID: 1713837
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: correct theory of law

Text: ¶17 The Board took up this matter in March 2001. At the time, the controlling law was our decision in State v. Kenosha County Board of Adjustment, 218 Wis. 2d 396, 577 N.W.2d 813 (1998). In Kenosha County, the court held that the proper standard for evaluating a request for an area variance [9] was whether the landowner would be left with no reasonable use of the property without a variance. Id. at 413. In other words, if the landowner had a feasible use without the variance, the application should be denied. Id. ¶18 An examination of the transcript shows that at least one of the Board members attempted to apply the Kenosha County no reasonable use test. Chairman Craig Zetley, explaining his decision to cast the vote ultimately responsible for denying Lamar's application, remarked that there [are] other purposes for this land. It hasn't been shown that there isn't another purpose for this land. ¶19 Lamar filed its certiorari brief with the circuit court on June 12, 2001. On June 29, 2001, this court reached a divided decision in State v. Outagamie County Board of Adjustment, 2001 WI 78, 244 Wis. 2d 613, 628 N.W.2d 376. In Outagamie County, the court split over whether the no reasonable use standard should be overruled (three justices), maintained but not applied to defeat the area variance in [that] case (two justices in concurrence) or maintained and applied to defeat the variance (two justices in dissent). Ziervogel, 269 Wis. 2d 549, ¶3 (citing Outagamie County, 244 Wis. 2d 613, ¶5). In its brief to the circuit court, filed July 12, 2001, the Board cited the newly released Outagamie County decision. ¶20 While this case wended its way through the appellate process, this court decided two more cases directly relevant to the Board's decision. In Ziervogel, released March 19, 2004, a more united court determined that the no reasonable use test was unworkable and unfair when used to evaluate applications for area variances. Ziervogel, 269 Wis. 2d 549, ¶¶4-5. The court revitalized a standard first announced in Snyder v. Waukesha County Zoning Board of Adjustment, 74 Wis. 2d 468, 247 N.W.2d 98 (1976). Under the Snyder standard, when considering an area variance, the question of whether unnecessary hardship . . . exists is best explained as whether compliance with the strict letter of the restrictions governing area, set backs, frontage, height, bulk or density would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. Ziervogel, 269 Wis. 2d 549, ¶7 (quoting Snyder, 74 Wis. 2d at 475) (internal citations omitted). ¶21 The court added that in making its determination, a board must consider the purpose of the zoning restriction, its effect on the property, and the effect a variance would have on the neighborhood and the larger public interest. Id., ¶7. We remanded the Ziervogel case because whether [the Snyder] standard is met in this case will depend upon the board of adjustment's consideration of the [newly announced test]. Id., ¶42. ¶22 Two months later, we released State v. Waushara County Board of Adjustment, 2004 WI 56, 271 Wis. 2d 547, 679 N.W.2d 514. In Waushara County, we reiterated the abrogation of the no reasonable use test for evaluating area variances. The party seeking a variance in that case asserted that the Wisconsin law on variances was in a state of confusion due to the interplay among Snyder, Kenosha County, and Outagamie County. Id., ¶¶16-18. The court candidly acknowledged: It is evident that there is some confusion over how to interpret and apply our decisions in Snyder, Kenosha County, and Outagamie County. Id., ¶23. We stated in Waushara County that our purpose was to give boards of adjustment and Wisconsin courts sufficient guidance as to how to resolve these types of cases in the future. Id. The court admitted that it appears that the no reasonable use standard has been applied, since [Kenosha County], in a very restrictive manner. Id., ¶32. In light of the new standards it announced, the court remanded the case for renewed consideration of the facts. Id., ¶35. ¶23 As did the Washington County Board of Adjustment in Ziervogel [10] and the Waushara County Board of Adjustment in Waushara County, [11] the Board in the instant case evaluated Lamar's application in 2001 under the Kenosha County no reasonable use rule. At that time, the state of the law was uncertain. The very purpose of the Waushara County decision was to give boards of adjustment guidance in resolving area variance applications. We see no reason why, like those other two boards, this Board should not have the opportunity to reevaluate the facts under the principles we laid out in Ziervogel, Waushara County, and Outagamie County. ¶24 The Board's failure to proceed on the correct theory of law independently justifies a remand. However, counsel for the Board at oral argument emphasized that such a decision would not answer the critical question before the court involving whether the Board must deliver an explicitly reasoned written decision, nor would it provide guidance to other boards of zoning appeal around the state. We agree that clarification of the court of appeals' decision is required, and accordingly, we proceed to discuss the adequacy of the Board's reasoning.