01-1851 Town of Avon v. Oliver

Listen to this article

“Oliver’s sport shooting range did not exist in 1995, when Wis. Stat. § 66.0409’s predecessor was first enacted. Thus § 66.0409(4)(c) plainly does permit enforcing a zoning ordinance that regulates his sport shooting range. Moreover, para. (4)(c) unambiguously expresses the legislature’s intent that § 66.0409 does not affect the ability of political subdivisions to enact and enforce zoning ordinances to regulate sport shooting ranges. The reference to ‘new construction’ or expansion’ simply means that the legislature assumed that sport shooting ranges that existed on the date the statute was enacted were permitted under existing zoning ordinances.”

Further, we reject plaintiff’s contention that his shooting range qualifies as an “accessory use” to his agricultural land because a sport shooting range is not “incidental and customary in connection with” general farming.

“The record shows that the sport shooting range is minor in size compared to Oliver’s entire acreage, and it is reasonable to infer that use of his property as a sport shooting range is of minor significance compared to use for general farming. However, the record does not show any reasonable association between the activities involved in the sport shooting range and the activities of general farming. …

“The testimony in this case supports the trial court’s decision that a sport shooting range was not a customary use in connection with general farming in the area. More specifically, the record does not show that a sport shooting range is commonly and by long practice reasonably associated with general farming in the area.”

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s permanent injunction prohibiting plaintiff’s use of the sport shooting range.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Rock County, Roethe, J., Vergeront, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Gary A. Glojek, Milwaukee; Mark R. Toth, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Kenneth W. Forbeck, Beloit