Wood v. City of Madison
2003 WI 24, 659 N.W.2d 31, 260 Wis. 2d 71 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality is authorized under Wis. Stat. ch. 236 to reject a preliminary plat within its extraterritorial jurisdiction based on a subdivision ordinance that considers the plat's proposed land use.
Facts:
- Gerald and Debra Wood (the Woods) own a 51.96-acre parcel of land in the Town of Burke.
- The parcel is located within the City of Madison's three-mile extraterritorial plat approval jurisdiction.
- The property and much of the surrounding land is zoned for agricultural purposes and used accordingly.
- The Woods submitted an application to the City of Madison for a preliminary plat that would divide their property into eleven lots.
- As part of their plan, the Woods sought to change the zoning for nine of the proposed lots from 'Agricultural' to 'Commercial'.
Procedural Posture:
- The Woods submitted a preliminary plat and land division application to the City of Madison.
- The City of Madison Plan Commission, after two public hearings, recommended denying the Woods' application.
- The City of Madison Common Council adopted the plan commission's recommendation and rejected the proposed plat.
- The Woods petitioned the Dane County Circuit Court (trial court) for certiorari review of the City's decision.
- The Circuit Court affirmed the City of Madison's rejection of the plat.
- The Woods, as appellants, appealed the circuit court's decision to the court of appeals, with the City of Madison as the appellee.
- The court of appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Wis. Stat. ch. 236 authorize a municipality to reject a preliminary plat under its extraterritorial jurisdictional authority based on a subdivision ordinance that considers the plat's proposed use?
Opinions:
Majority - Ann Walsh Bradley, J.
Yes. Wis. Stat. ch. 236 authorizes a municipality to reject a preliminary plat under its extraterritorial jurisdictional authority based upon a subdivision ordinance that considers the plat's proposed use. The plain language of Wis. Stat. § 236.45(1) explicitly states that subdivision regulations shall be made with a view for 'encouraging the most appropriate use of land.' The court reasoned that it is impossible for an ordinance to consider the 'most appropriate use of land' if it cannot consider the proposed use of the land. This decision overrules 'Gordie Boucher Lincoln-Mercury v. Madison Plan Comm’n', which had incorrectly established a rigid and untenable distinction between regulating the 'quality' of a land division (a platting function) and regulating its 'use' (a zoning function). The court found that zoning and platting authority are not mutually exclusive; as established in 'Town of Sun Prairie v. Storms', a regulation authorized by the platting statute is permissible even if it also falls under the zoning power. Madison's ordinance provided clear standards based on use-compatibility and land use patterns, and its rejection of the Woods' plat based on these standards was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory.
Concurring - David T. Prosser, J.
Yes, but for different reasons. The concurrence agrees with the majority's ultimate decision to affirm the rejection of the Woods' plat but disagrees with the reasoning and, most significantly, with the decision to overrule 'Gordie Boucher'. The concurring opinion argues that the majority relies too heavily on broad statutory declarations of purpose rather than specific grants of power, and in doing so, fails to harmonize extraterritorial platting authority with the more collaborative process required for extraterritorial zoning under Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7a). The concurrence defends 'Gordie Boucher' as correctly holding that a municipality cannot use its subdivision power to effectively rezone land that is already validly zoned for a particular use. This case is distinguishable because the Woods' land was zoned agricultural and they were proposing a change, whereas in 'Gordie Boucher', the land was already zoned for the proposed commercial use. Therefore, Madison's rejection here was reasonable based on quality concerns and the conflict with the existing master plan and agricultural zoning, but the broad power granted by the majority goes too far.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters land use law in Wisconsin by formally erasing the distinction between platting and zoning authority regarding land use. By overruling 'Gordie Boucher', the court empowers municipalities to use their subdivision ordinances as a powerful tool to control the type of development in their extraterritorial jurisdictions, not just its layout. This ruling strengthens municipal control over fringe development but may increase conflicts between cities and surrounding towns, as cities can now more easily reject developments based on use, even if those uses comply with town or county zoning ordinances. The decision shifts the legal landscape, making it more difficult for developers to challenge plat rejections that are based on the proposed use of the property.
