00-1958 Lake Bluff Housing Partners v. City of South Milwaukee

Listen to this article

“The trial court found, as a result, that the harm was caused by Lake Bluff’s business decision to proceed with construction before the final legality was determined. In essence, the trial court concluded that Lake Bluff was the party with unclean hands. The trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, and its decision was reasonable.”

Further, we reject plaintiffs’ contention that the trial court’s decision to order the buildings razed was erroneous because such action would cause “unnecessary hardship.”

“Here, the trial court found that a reasonable use for the property in compliance with the R-A zoning was possible. The City submitted evidence that the property could be divided into ten separate parcels for construction of single-family residences. Lake Bluff argues that the City’s plan to build ten single-family homes on this piece of property was unreasonable and they would never provide the economic value that the apartment buildings would provide.

“The standard, however, is not whether a variance would provide the greatest economic value, but whether any reasonable use for the property exists which would comply with the zoning classification. The trial court found in the City’s favor on this issue, and there is evidence in the record to support that decision. …

“In sum, we conclude that the trial court properly engaged in the equitable analysis under [Forest County v.]Goode, [219 Wis. 2d 654 (1998)]. Its written decision addresses all the pertinent factors. The trial court also emphasized that it is only in a ‘rare case’ when ‘compelling equitable reasons’ exist that the requested order of abatement should not be issued. The municipalities, and the citizens who reside there, have a right to enforce their zoning laws. Although this case presented an unfortunate financial conundrum for Lake Bluff, ultimately it was Lake Bluff’s own business decision, driven by the potential for financial gain, which resulted in proceeding with construction despite the uncertainty of the outcome, causing the ultimate financial loss. Under the totality of the circumstances presented, this is not one of those rare cases where equity overcomes the City’s legal right and duty to secure compliance with its zoning classification.”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.