“With respect to transportation, the Department … found that ‘the road system is geared more towards linking the area to external locations than it is to provide internal movement. In fact, the roads seem designed to prevent internal travel.’ In support of its finding, the Department cited to its observations that some internal roads are very narrow and the gravel surface is washed out and that there are no trespassing signs throughout subdivisions warning that the roads are not public.”
“The Department found that the primary land use in the proposed village is overwhelmingly residential. There is no definite shopping area and there is only one church which does not operate during the winter months. While there are taverns, restaurants and resort businesses such as boat rentals or sales, the Department found that there are no businesses which attempt to meet the day-to-day needs of the residents such as grocery stores, auto repair shops, banks, professional offices, pharmacies, medical clinics or barber shops. While the petitioners argue that there is a tavern which meets the day-to-day needs of the residents by carrying a limited stock of food items in its cooler, the Department found that the tavern does not stock nearly enough food to meet the daily needs of the proposed village residents.
In sum, the Department determined that the proposed village is ‘a group of neighborhoods or subdivisions on three different lakes with no shopping area which can satisfy the daily needs of its residents.’
“[T]he Department noted the lack of schools and churches in the proposed village. It noted that the proposed village does not have any schools within its boundaries but would include portions of three high school districts and three elementary school districts. It concluded that ‘the mere fact that students and parents are pulled in three separate directions for education reflects on the disparity and fragmentation of social customs in the area.’
“We conclude that the Department’s findings with respect to the requirements of Wis. Stat. sec. 66.016(1)(a)-homogeneity, compactness and a reasonably developed community center-are supported by substantial evidence in the record.”
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist II, Kenosha County, Schroeder, J., Nettesheim, J.
For Appellant: Patrick J. Hudec, East Troy; Gabrielle Boehm, East Troy
For Respondent: F. Thomas Creeron III, Madison