Opinion ID: 2233517
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Town Veto and Comprehensive Plan

Text: [6] Plaintiff argues that sec. 59.97(5) (e)6, Stats., granting town boards the power to veto county board adopted amendments, conflicts with the requirement of comprehensive planning as he interpreted sec. 62.23(7) (c) to require. In Bell v. City of Elkhorn, 122 Wis. 2d 558, 364 N.W.2d 144 (1985), filed this same date, we decided that an independent document separate from the zoning ordinance and zoning map is not statutorily required, but that comprehensive planning as evidenced from the municipal zoning ordinance satisfies the requirements of the law. Here, the legislature in enacting sec. 59.97(5) (e)6 recognized the need for town board input to effect a deliberative county-wide planning process. In particular, the legislature determined it appropriate to give town boards the power to veto county board zoning amendments and thus become an integral and effective factor in the planning process. In Bell, we stated one of the objectives sought by the requirement of a comprehensive plan is effecting political and technical coordination in community development. (Page 565.) The interaction between town and county government assists in the effectuation of that goal. The town's veto of the county board zoning amendment preserved the status quo and there has been no showing that the use of the veto blocked or interfered with any county comprehensive planning, but rather, the veto precluded a single parcel deviation from the existing planning. The record is sparse as to any attempt by the plaintiff to demonstrate that Iowa county did not have a comprehensive plan or that the county did not do comprehensive planning. The town veto does not violate a constitutional or statutory requirement.