STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT BAYFIELD COUNTY

BAYFIELD COUNTY COMMITTEE

FOR RESPONSIBLE LAND USE, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 09-CV-52

v.

BAYFIELD COUNTY,

Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR AMENDED COMPLAINT

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case is before the Court for the second time, on the plaintiffs’ challenge to the

County’s decision granting an application by CFS, LLC to rezone a 380-acre parcel of

land in the Town of Russell to allow CFS to build “residential condominiums, a hotel,

restaurant and bar, fuel station, and a private air strip”1 previously known as Shadow

Wood Landing but subsequently renamed “Waypoint” by the developer. The Court

initially found that because there was, according to topographic maps, a presumptively

navigable intermittent stream running through the CFS property, the county board should

have followed the procedures and standards applicable to shorelands in acting on the

rezoning application. Because it had not done so, the Court remanded the matter to the

county board “with instructions to comply with the rezoning process set forth in Wis.

Stat. § 59.69(5)(e).”2

1
Supplemental Written Decision, February 11, 2010, p. 2.
2
Id., p. 6.
 The county board thereafter secured a DNR determination that “there was not a

navigable stream on the property at the time of the survey [on April 20, 2009],”3 and

recommenced proceedings on the CFS application for rezoning. Hearings ensued,

culminating in a second decision by the county board, on March 30, 2010, to rezone the

CFS property. The vote was 7 yes, 4 no, 2 absent.4

The plaintiffs again brought the matter to the Court, and at the conclusion of a

hearing on July 12, 2010, the Court ruled that it retained jurisdiction over the matter as

the post-remand proceedings on CFS, LLC’s rezoning petition were “transactionally

related and part of the same matter, and the Court did not address the plaintiffs’ other

claims previously because the one error found, with respect to shoreland zoning

procedures, was dispositive.”5 The defendant was directed to file a supplemental record.

On September 14, 2010, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to

amend the complaint, and established a briefing schedule.6 The plaintiffs’ amended

complaint added a claim based on Wis. Stat. § 66.1001(3), which requires that after

January 1, 2010, a zoning ordinance amendment by any local unit of government with a

comprehensive plan must be consistent with that plan. The plaintiffs alleged that

Bayfield County Amendatory Ordinance No. 2010-04,7 rezoning the CFS property, is not

consistent with the County’s comprehensive plan.

3
September 29, 2009 Activity Report by DNR Water Management Specialist John Spangberg, Record 36.
4
Minutes of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors’ Meeting, March 30, 2010, Record 4, pp. 297-304, P-Ap. 1.
5
Order to Supplement the Record, July 15, 2010.
6
Order Allowing Amendment of Complaint and Scheduling Order, September 15, 2010.
7
P-Ap. 2.

-2-
 WISCONSIN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING LAW

In 1999, the Wisconsin Legislature enacted Wis. Stat. § 66.1001.8 According to a

report published by the Wisconsin Department of Administration, that statute “defines a

comprehensive plan, details land use regulations that must be consistent with a

comprehensive plan beginning in 2010, and lists mandatory procedures for adopting a

comprehensive plan.”9 The same report indicates that “[w]ith the adoption of the

Comprehensive Planning Law, the Comprehensive Planning Grant Program was created

to aid communities in the development and adoption of their comprehensive plans.”

A third statute enacted as part of 1999 Act 9, Wis. Stat. § 1.13(2), lists the goals of

comprehensive planning as follows:

(a) Promotion of the redevelopment of lands with existing infrastructure and

public services and the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing residential, commercial
and industrial structures.
(b) Encouragement of neighborhood designs that support a range of
transportation choices.
(c) Protection of natural areas, including wetlands, wildlife habitats, lakes,
woodlands, open spaces and groundwater resources.
(d) Protection of economically productive areas, including farmland and
forests.
(e) Encouragement of land uses, densities and regulations that promote
efficient development patterns and relatively low municipal, state governmental and
utility costs.
(f) Preservation of cultural, historic and archaeological sites.
(g) Encouragement of coordination and cooperation among nearby units of
government.
(h) Building of community identity by revitalizing main streets and enforcing
design standards.
(i) Providing an adequate supply of affordable housing for individuals of all
income levels throughout each community.

8
Wis. Stat. § 66.0296, created by 1999 Wisconsin Act 9, sec. 1606, was renumbered Wis. Stat. § 66.1001 by 1999
Wisconsin Act 150, sec. 74.
9
“Wisconsin’s Comprehensive Planning Legislation,” Legislative Guide Document, Revised September, 2010,
Division of Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Administration, p. 1; P-Ap. 3.

-3-
 (j) Providing adequate infrastructure and public services and an adequate
supply of developable land to meet existing and future market demand for residential,
commercial and industrial uses.
(k) Promoting the expansion or stabilization of the current economic base and
the creation of a range of employment opportunities at the state, regional and local levels.
(L) Balancing individual property rights with community interests and goals.
(m) Planning and development of land uses that create or preserve varied and
unique urban and rural communities.
(n) Providing an integrated, efficient and economical transportation system that
affords mobility, convenience and safety and that meets the needs of all citizens,
including transit-dependent and disabled citizens.

As already noted, one feature of the state’s comprehensive planning law is the

requirement that after January 1, 2010, local governments’ actions comport with their

comprehensive plans. This initially broad mandate was narrowed in the 2009 legislative

session10 to provide more specifically that if a local governmental unit enacts or amends,

inter alia., county zoning ordinances enacted or amended under s. 59.69, “the ordinance

shall be consistent with that local governmental unit’s comprehensive plan.” Wis. Stat. §

66.1001(3). 2009 Wisconsin Act 372 also added a new section defining “consistent

with” to mean “furthers or does not contradict the objectives, goals and policies contained

in the comprehensive plan.”11

ARGUMENT

I. BAYFIELD COUNTY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOULD BE PROPERLY

IMPLEMENTED

A. THE PLAN WAS CAREFULLY DEVELOPED

Bayfield County and the towns within it moved ahead in the decade that followed

the enactment of the above-referenced statutes to develop comprehensive plans.

10
2009 Wisconsin Act 372.
11
Id., sec. 7; Wis. Stat. § 66.1001(1)(am).

-4-
Adopted in late 2009, the County’s plan was finalized, with the incorporation of maps

prepared by the individual townships, as the first order of business at the March 30, 2010

Board meeting. Supervisor Blahnik started the discussion by saying, “as you know,

Bayfield County adopted their comprehensive plan December of 2009, but unfortunately,

the comprehensive maps were not available at that time.”12 He went on to indicate that

the County’s map would be a composite of the comprehensive planning maps prepared

by the individual towns in the county. Zoning Administrator Karl Kastrosky reiterated

this scheme a few minutes later, stating that “[t]he county has not prepared an individual

map on its own will. The future land use map for Bayfield County is a composite of the

25 townships.”13 After some brief testimony and discussion, the Board adopted the

map(s).14

As more than one citizen at the March 30 hearing testified, the comprehensive

plans prepared for the County and the individual towns were not casually promulgated.

One speaker noted that “[a]n awful lot of work has been done at the towns and at the

county on this comprehensive plan and I just urge the county to utilize some of that effort

and work and analysis and – in their planning and in their zoning approvals or

disapprovals as they come before this board.”15 Another stated:

I’m a proponent of planning. I used to be a planner. I think that, when we ask our
very thoughtful friends and neighbors to calmly consider what is work for them in
their lives, what is work for their friends in the neighborhood in terms of the
environment that they live in, I think we should pay attention to them. See,

12
Transcript of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors’ Meeting, March 30, 2010, Record 35, (hereinafter
“Transcript”), p. 5.
13
Transcript, p. 8.
14
Transcript, pp. 11-13.
15
Transcript, p. 10.

-5-
 thoughtful people have spent a lot of time putting this together. We have an
obligation to let that guide us. You have a requirement, I believe, to let that guide
us. It’s very ironic to me that the . . .first act of this board is to consider rezoning,
what I would consider spot rezoning, a property against the wishes of the people
who developed these plans.16

Another indicated that she had worked on the Town of Bayfield land use plan, and

encouraged the board members to “respect this grassroots effort of all the people who

have gone into comprehensive planning . . . the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of

hours that people have” put into working out a plan for their community . . . “these plans

really give you a sort of mandate for how to make decisions.”17 Still another resident

submitted a letter, as she was unable to attend the hearing, and, although she was not

speaking in her capacity as such, was a member of the Town of Russell Planning

Commission. That letter stated:

[t]he Town of Russell conducted many public meetings, gathered information

from concerned citizens, including representatives from CFS and consulted with
the planning division of SEH. Our comprehensive plan was adopted and finalized
by the planning committee and then adopted without changes by the Full Town
Board. Our planning committee struggled with many issues as guiding principles
of the comprehensive plan. (Record, 18).

Addressing the CFS rezoning proposal before the Board that evening, her letter said:

“[t]he vote you cast regarding the proposed rezone of the property owned by CFS .
. . is not simply a vote related to one township. It is a vote that will speak directly
to all the concerned volunteer citizens who spent countless hours on their
comprehensive plans throughout Bayfield County. What is at stake here is
whether a long democratic process will prevail over the desires of a few.” Id.

16
Transcript, pp. 111-112.
17
Transcript, pp. 121-122.

-6-
 B. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS SOUND

Bayfield County’s comprehensive plan, almost 200 pages long, was developed in

response to 1999 Wisconsin Act 9. It has the “general purpose of guiding and

accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the planning

area.”18 A comprehensive plan is essentially “a series of policies for assisting the

community in attaining its visions, goals and objectives,”19 and Wis. Stat. § 66.1001(3)

requires that land use ordinances be consistent with that plan.

Bayfield County’s plan recognizes what a special place we live in and strives to

protect it. The prelude identifies the county as “a place that is steeped in an abundance of

natural beauty . . . a sense of place and peace.”20 In order to preserve these important

values, the plan prescribes the County’s natural resources protection policy on p. 65:

Preservation of natural resources (wetlands, surface and groundwater, woodlands,

shorelines) is an important priority for Bayfield County and shall be considered in
the decision-making process for all future planning and development decisions.
These resources provide recreational opportunities and enhance the quality of life
for residents and visitors to the area. (Emphasis added).

And in addressing growth pressures, the plan states on p. 117:

The use of land is the most important factor in managing the future growth of any
community. Land use trends indicate what changes are occurring regarding type,
location, and intensity of land uses over time. It is these changes that have to be
managed in a manner that is beneficial to area residents and the environment.

The “Implementation” section of the plan, on p. 178, prescribes the actions

necessary to fulfill the comprehensive plan goals:

18
Bayfield County Comprehensive Plan, Update 2010, P-Ap. 5 (hereinafter “Plan”), p. 4.
19
Plan, p. 178.
20
Plan, “Prelude.”

-7-
 The plan addresses many important components critical to sustaining a healthy
community while preserving the area’s rural character, natural resources, and
history. . . Elected officials . . . should review . . . all proposals pertaining to future
development . . . against this plan and develop specific findings of fact to support
or deny any given application. As part of this review, a thorough review of the
Plan is necessary with particular attention given to the goals and objectives.

These goals include, according to the Plan on p. 185:

Conserve, protect, manage and enhance the Bayfield County’s natural resources,
including but not limited to lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, groundwater, forest
lands and other wildlife habitats in order to provide the highest quality of life for
citizens and visitors.

Or, as stated more succinctly on page 180 of the Plan, “Goal: Preserve Bayfield’s existing

character.”

II. THE REZONING OF CFS, LLC’S PROPERTY DOES NOT COMPORT WITH
THE COUNTY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

At its March 30, 2010 meeting, following its adoption of the maps for its new

comprehensive plan, the County Board again took up the application of CFS, LLC to

rezone its Town of Russell property. After hearing more than 40 residents voice their

opposition to the rezone, on grounds, among others, that it did not comport with the plan,

the Board voted to approve it. In spite of the long, thoughtful process citizens and

officials of the County had just undergone to craft a county-wide plan to guide their

zoning decisions, the Board essentially ignored the goals and policies stated therein.

The testimony the Board heard that evening included concerns expressed by a

professional involved with the soil survey done in the county several years ago21 that the

21
The Soil Survey of Bayfield County, 2006, Natural Resource Conservation Service, USDA, can be found at  
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/WI007/0/Bayfield_WI.pdf ; it indicates on p. ix that “[t]he
information in this publication is intended to identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land
treatment decisions.”

-8-
area subject to the rezoning proposal “is largely wetland, it’s sand over clay and . . .

there’s a lot of water that’s running through that landscape.”22 Echoing those concerns, a

neighboring property owner told about first-hand observations over 30 years of “washed-

out roads and water coming down the hill and flooded basements. And that whole hill is

like that . . .”23

The Comprehensive Plan indicates that “[t]he Soil Survey of Bayfield County

provides information regarding the suitability of land for different uses,” and directs that

it be utilized to make appropriate land use decisions based on soil capabilities. 24 In this

case, however, the record is devoid of any indication the Board considered soil conditions

in rezoning the CFS property.

Concern was also expressed at the hearing about nearby Pikes Creek, “a class-one

trout stream, [and] outstanding resource water,”25 that would receive the volumes of

drainage from the rezoned area, were it developed. One of those voicing these concerns

was a representative of the local Trout Unlimited Chapter, who referred to Pikes Creek as

“really one of the few remaining quality waters” in the area, given the heavy siltation in

the Sioux, the Onion, Fish Creek and others, and associated adverse impacts on the local

economy.26

The Comprehensive Plan refers, on page 13, to the 2009 Bayfield County Survey

used as a tool in the planning process, and indicates that “ninety percent of respondents

22
Transcript, pp. 38-40.
23
Transcript, p. 94.
24
Plan, pp. 44, 62.
25
Transcript, p. 40.
26
Transcript, pp. 40-43.

-9-
agreed or strongly agreed that Bayfield County should further ensure that its lakes, rivers,

streams and wetlands are protected,” and “seventy-four percent . . . agreed or strongly

agreed that additional development restrictions should be put in place to protect the

aesthetic beauty and ecological functioning of lake, river and stream shorelines.” The

Plan identifies as a goal, on page 61, the conserv[ation], protect[ion], manage[ment] and

enhance[ment of] the County’s natural resources, including . . . streams . . . in order to

provide the highest quality of life for citizens and visitors.” There is nothing in the

record of the Board’s proceedings on the CFS rezone to suggest that the Board looked at

the adverse impacts their action could have on Pikes Creek.

Another legitimate concern expressed by a number of residents at the hearing

involved the likely impacts of the rezone on other businesses in the area, such as pick-

your-own fruit farms and tourism—that depend on peace and quiet in a rural/wilderness

setting.27 The Comprehensive Plan also addresses this issue, stating, on page 81, that

“[n]ew commercial and industrial activities should be limited to those areas designated

for such use on the Future Land Use Map in order to minimize adverse impacts upon

surrounding land use…” The rezone did not follow that Plan direction, authorizing

commercial development in an area outside of that designated for such on the Plan’s

future land use map.28

Other speakers at the Board hearing expressed trepidation about the increased

infrastructure costs likely to result from the rezone for, e.g. maintaining and improving

27
Transcript, pp. 55-56, 78-79.
28
R. 19, P-Ap. 5.

- 10 -
bridges and roads in both the Town of Russell and the neighboring Town of Bayfield.29

This, too, is addressed in the County’s Comprehensive Plan:

Wisconsin Chapter 66.1001 requires local communities to explore and plan for
redevelopment options and identifying potential smart growth areas. Smart
Growth Areas are areas with existing infrastructure and services in place, where
development and redevelopment can be easily directed. These areas may also be
recently developing land contiguous to existing development that will be
developed at densities that will have relatively low public service costs.30

This consideration, too, was given short shrift by the Board.

Much of the testimony in opposition to the rezone focused on peace and quiet—on

the tranquility and other rural virtues of the Bayfield Peninsula.31 This is entirely

appropriate, as that is also the focus of much of the comprehensive plan,32 and to the

extent the Board’s job was, in part, to gauge the fit between the proposed rezone and the

plan, this testimony should have been of great interest to them.

A number of those who testified referred to conflicts between the proposal and the

Town of Russell’s comprehensive plan. Inasmuch as that plan is consistent with the

County’s comprehensive plan, and indeed, the future land use map prepared by the Town

was literally incorporated into the County plan, those concerns merit consideration. A

Town of Russell Plan Commission member, speaking on her own behalf at the March 30

hearing, testified as follows:

I tried to help put together a comp plan that would preserve rural character, and we
had long discussions about what rural character is. I also wanted—wanted to see
that our natural resources would be preserved. I feel the comp plan accomplished

29
Transcript, pp. 84-85; 126.
30
Plan, p. 117.
31
See, e.g., Transcript at pp. 55-56, 86, 119, 123.
32
See, e.g., Plan, p. 28: “Key concerns regarding the agricultural, natural and cultural resources in Bayfield County
include . . . preservation of rural character.”

- 11 -
 that . . . My first and foremost concern was and continues to be the health and
well-being of our living community, not the financial concerns of investors from
the Minneapolis area who support an exclusive fly-in community. Development is
happening and will continue to happen in our area. That isn’t all bad. Some of
it’s good. But we need to look at each one to see if it fits with our comp plan and
our living community. I strongly feel that the proposed Shadow Wood Landing is
not in any way in compliance with the Town of Russell comprehensive plan.33

Another speaker who had served on a planning committee for one of the other

towns in the county told the Board that “a big group put a lot of effort into that with the

expectation that they would be honored by you.”34 She went on to say:

And we surveyed—all of the plans surveyed the town, people, get the opinions
and—and the rural character issue came up on every plan. We read, in preparation
for making our own plan, it’s such an important issue, the quiet, the peace, what
the lady just spoke about is—is just huge. It came up in every plan as the number
one thing about why people live here. That needs to be respected. An airport in
the middle of it all is just not what we need.35

It is this inconsistency between the rezone and the comprehensive plan that is, of

course, the fundamental issue before the Court, and while the plaintiffs understand that

the Board’s rezoning decision is entitled to a presumption of validity and will not be

overturned in the absence of abuse of discretion, excess of power or error of law,36 the

plaintiffs believe they can satisfy that burden. Wisconsin Stat. § 66.1001(3) requires that

zoning amendments be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the rezone in this

case clearly was not. It therefore constituted an error of law, and should be reversed.

33
Transcript, pp. 107-08; see also Record 31.
34
Transcript, p. 124-125.
35
Transcript, p. 125.
36
Step Now Citizens Group v. Town of Utica Planning & Zoning Committee, 2003 WI App 109, 264 Wis. 2d 662,
678, 663 N.W. 2d 833 (2003).

- 12 -
 Amendatory ordinance No. 2010-04, rezoning the CFS property in the Town of

Russell to Agricultural-One (Ag-1), Residential-Recreational Business (R-RB) and

Commercial (C), conflicts with the County’s commitments, in its comprehensive plan, to

Conserve, protect, manage and enhance the Bayfield County’s natural resources,
including but not limited to lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, groundwater, forest
lands and other wildlife habitats in order to provide the highest quality of life for
citizens and visitors.37

More concretely, the rezone of the CFS property does not comport with the future use

designation for this property in the comprehensive plan map.38 That map shows that the

380 acres owned by CFS, LLC are designated “Rural-Moderate Residential.” This

designation is defined in the plan as “areas designated for large-lot or clustered

residential [dwellings] in a rural, largely wooded setting.” (Emphasis added).39 Other

areas of the Township--the Village of Red Cliff and land along Highway 13 adjacent to

Red Cliff Reservation land--are designated Commercial and Industrial, but, as noted

previously, the CFS parcel is not in those areas. The plaintiffs submit that rezoning the

CFS property to allow for the development of as many as 284 residences, a hotel,

restaurant and bar, fuel station, and a private air strip in an area that is, under the

County’s comprehensive plan, designated for limited residential development “in a rural,

largely wooded setting” violates both the spirit and the letter of the comprehensive plan,

in violation of Wis. Stat. § 66.1001(3).

37
Plan, p. 185.
38
Record 19, P-Ap. 5.
39
Plan, p. 105.

- 13 -
III. THE BOARD’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE REZONE DID NOT COMPLY
WITH WIS. STAT. § 66.1001(3)

The Board’s discussion of the rezoning proposal can be found on pages 144

through 179 of the transcript of the March 30, 2010 meeting. The factors that seem to

have driven the final decision were the potential for economic development, an increased

tax base, and jobs creation. While these are worthy objectives, the Board’s reliance may

have been misplaced. One speaker reminded them of a) the number of other local

development proposals that had failed and b) the likelihood that the developer of a project

with a commercial area twice the size of Miller Hill Mall would neither employ local

tradesmen nor source materials locally.40 A younger member of the audience voiced

apprehension that a misguided quest to create jobs (cleaning houses, shoveling snow,

etc.), would result in a lower quality of life for young families in the county.41 Even one

of the few supporters of the rezoning proposal told the Board that this was the sort of jobs

that could be expected, i.e., “[a]ll we need is one landowner to show up and build a house

and he’s going to need somebody to clean it, cut his grass, shovel his snow, plow his

driveway.”42 What is important, though, is not the Board’s ill-founded economic

expectations, but its disregard for and/or superficial treatment of the other prescribed

considerations

Supervisor Jardine started the discussion by noting that the rezone had been

approved at the zoning committee meeting, and that he had made the motion to approve

“and [he] had a reason for it,” he said. “Definitely that I felt that that was a area with
40
Transcript, pp. 93, 97-98; 102-103.
41
Transcript, p. 101-104; 34-35; 134-35; 137.
42
Transcript, p. 34-35.

- 14 -
which is going to improve the company—the count—the county, I should say,

monetarily-wise, tax-wise, the whole works down the line, which would override, of

course, what they called spot zoning. To me, it did.” That reference to improving the

“company” may have been a Freudian slip, because the Board’s subsequent references to

the proper criteria, e.g., whether the proposal was consistent with the comprehensive plan

or in the best interests of County or its residents, were largely superficial and conclusory.

For example, Supervisor Rondeau opined that “[the proposal] seems to be

consistent with the plan, the long range plan and the goals of the comprehensive plan . . .

I think this project does fit in with the—with the character of the area,”43 but he provided

no explanation for that conclusion. Supervisor Good likewise acknowledged that

“maintaining the rural character of the Town of Russell is very important” and “in our

comprehensive plan,” but seemed to feel that objective was satisfied, independent of what

might happen on the rezoned property, because roughly two-thirds of the (other) land in

the Town is in public ownership (county forest, national lakeshore, DNR and tribal

lands).44

As noted above, the Comprehensive Plan includes the following directive:

Elected officials, Plan Commissions, Town Boards and County staff should review
. . . all proposals pertaining to future development and redevelopment against this
Plan and develop specific findings of fact to support or deny any given
application. As part of the review, a thorough review of the Plan is necessary with
particular attention given to the goals and objectives. Where the impact of a
proposed development is minimal, the evaluation may simply be a determination
of whether or not the Plan provides relevant direction and whether the request
action is in conformance with the Plan. Development proposals with significant

43
Transcript, p. 157.
44
Transcript, pp. 160-61.

- 15 -
 potential impacts will require a more detailed analysis in order to determine
consistency. (Emphasis added).45

It is evident from the record in this case that neither County staff nor the Board conducted

the required review or developed the specific findings of fact to support CFS’ rezoning

application before deciding to approve it. In Lamar Central Outdoor, Inc., v. Board of

Zoning Appeals of the City of Milwaukee, 2005 WI 117, 285 Wis. 2d 1, 700 N.W. 2d 87

(2005), the Court held that a board of zoning appeals may not simply grant or deny a

variance application with conclusory statements that the application does or does not

satisfy statutory criteria. The plaintiffs submit that rationale is applicable here, as well,

and urge the Court to reject the Board’s unsupported and erroneous conclusion that the

rezone is consistent with the County’s comprehensive plan.

III. SPOT ZONING

The briefs previously filed by the plaintiffs addressed the spot zoning issue, and

those arguments will not be restated here. However, it should be noted that the first

factor courts consider in determining whether a zoning amendment constitutes illegal

spot zoning is whether the rezoning is consistent with long-range planning and based

upon considerations which affect the whole community. As discussed at length above,

the rezone of the CFS property is not consistent with either long-range planning or

community interests, as reflected in the County’s comprehensive plan. For this reason, as

well as those argued previously, the plaintiff’s maintain that Amendatory Ordinance No.

2010-04 constitutes illegal spot zoning.

45
Plan, p. 178.

- 16 -
 CONCLUSION

When it enacted the state’s comprehensive planning law just over a decade ago,

the Legislature identified a series of objectives, not the least of which was “[p]rotection

of natural areas, including wetlands, wildlife habitats, lakes, woodlands, open spaces and

groundwater resources.” The comprehensive plan developed by Bayfield County’s

elected officials, residents and consultants is a sound one, and if implemented, will

advance that and the other goals outlined in the law and serve its residents well. The

decision to rezone the CFS property, however, not only does not advance the plan or

most of its objectives, it overtly conflicts with them, in violation of Wis. Stat. §

66.1001(3), and should, therefore, be reversed.

Dated this 30th day of November, 2010.

____________________________
SHARI EGGLESON
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
State Bar #1018462
77510 Houghton Point Road
Washburn, WI 54891
(715) 373-2111

- 17 -