2010AP1186 Smerz v. Delafield Town Board

Listen to this article

Municipalities
Discontinuation of alleys; standing

A property owner whose property does not abut a discontinued alley has no standing to challenge the discontinuance.

“Even though he does not assert that any of the objectors’ land abuts the  discontinued segments, Smerz argues that he nonetheless has standing because of  a single sentence in § 66.1003(3): ‘The beginning and ending of an unpaved  alley shall be considered to be within the block in which it is located.’ He  states that ‘[b]ecause Appellants live on the same block of the alley at issue,  they have standing to challenge the Order.’ We find this argument absurd.  The  legislature’s choice to define the dimensions of an entire unpaved alley in a  certain way does not change the plain meaning of the phrase ‘portion of the  alley to be discontinued’ when it appears elsewhere in the statute.  Section  66.1003(4)(d) clearly gives standing to people whose property abuts the  discontinued portions of the alleys, not every landowner on the block.”
Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP1186 Smerz v. Delafield Town Board

Dist. II, Waukesha County, Hassin, J., Brown, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Mich, Robert A., Jr., Madison; For Respondent: Bruce, John M., New Berlin

Full Text