Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Municipalities — fracking
It was not arbitrary for a county to grant a conditional use permit to engage in fracking.
“We reject O’Connor’s argument for three reasons. First, O’Connor does not cite any legal authority for the proposition that a board of adjustment may not grant a CUP to a partnership without first ascertaining the partners’ identities. Second, O’Connor does not cite any evidence that he, or anyone else, raised concerns regarding the lack of information about R&J’s partners during the Board’s consideration of either CUP application. Third, although O’Connor asserts it ‘may prove impossible’ to enforce the CUP’s conditions, the Board argues Buffalo County’s zoning ordinance provides several enforcement mechanisms that do not require service of process, including the right to inspect the premises to ensure compliance and the right to investigate complaints. In addition, Glacier Sands notes that one of the CUP’s conditions allows the county to revoke the CUP for noncompliance. O’Connor does not respond to these arguments that other adequate enforcement mechanisms exist, and unrefuted arguments are deemed conceded. See Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis.2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1979). O’Connor has not met his burden to overcome the presumption of correctness by showing the Board acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or outside its jurisdiction.”
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
2013AP2097 O’Connor v. Buffalo County Board of Adjustment
Dist. III, Buffalo County, Boles, J., Stark, J.
Attorneys: For Appellant: Ekman, John, Minneapolis; Vehrs, Karla, Minneapolis; For Respondent: Stadler, Ronald S., Milwaukee; Graf, Aaron J., Milwaukee