Opinion ID: 1291031
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Wisconsin Practice

Text: ¶ 39. Our holding that the Board has discretion to take evidence and perform a de novo review of the Committee's decision finds additional support in the past practice of similar boards in other counties, as evidenced in our case law. ¶ 40. For example, in State ex rel. Brookside Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Jefferson County Board of Adjustment, we noted that, on appeal from a county zoning committee, the Jefferson County Board of Adjustment conducted the appeal as a contested case hearing and ordered the parties to present their cases as if the appeals were de novo proceedings. 131 Wis. 2d 101, 107, 388 N.W.2d 593 (1986). Similarly, in Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Dane County Board of Adjustment, the Dane County Board of Adjustment took extensive testimony and conducted a de novo hearing upon appeal of a zoning committee's grant of a conditional use permit. 2000 WI App 211, ¶¶ 4-5, 8, 238 Wis. 2d 810, 618 N.W.2d 537. In Wolff v. Town of Jamestown, the court of appeals observed that when the Town of Jamestown appealed the Grant County Planning and Zoning Committee's grant of a conditional use permit, the Grant County Board of Adjustment ultimately denied the . . . application [for conditional use permit]. 229 Wis. 2d 738, 742, 601 N.W.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1999). The Grant County Board of Adjustment did not remand the appeal to the Committee. In all three cases, it is plain that the Board of Adjustment exercised its power of de novo review without objection. At oral argument, the Board's counsel anecdotally confirmed that other boards of adjustment use similar practices. ¶ 41. Quite possibly, Wisconsin boards of adjustment believe they have these powers because widely circulated guidebooks governing Wisconsin board practice so state. ¶ 42. In 1960 the League of Wisconsin Municipalities published Zoning Boards of Appeal: A Manual on Their Powers and Duties with Suggested Rules of Procedure (1960). This manual plainly contemplates the Board hearing evidence, including allowing the appellant to examine the administrative official whose decision is appealed. Id. at 7-8. Significantly, [t]he board is not bound by the decision of the building inspector or administrative officer on questions of fact. Id. at 9 (citing Brown v. Montgomery, 193 S.W.2d 23, 26-27 (Mo. 1946)). [12] The League's guide interpreted identical language found in both Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(e)7 and Wis. Stat. § 59.694(7)(a), referencing a board's power to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error, to mean that the Board has the power to correct mistakes made by the administrative official. Id. at 11. Similarly, the Land Use Education Center's Zoning Board Handbook for Zoning Boards of Adjustment/Appeals (July 2001) anticipates that the Board will hear testimony and take other evidence. Id. at 12.