Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waushara County board declines request for de novo hearing on Project Harmony permit
Summary
The Waushara County Board of Adjustment voted 5‑0 to deny a request from the Long Lake Association to reopen consideration of Project Harmony’s conditional use permit, after outside counsel and county counsel advised the board that a circuit court order directing the permit’s issuance likely places the matter outside the board’s jurisdiction.
The Waushara County Board of Adjustment voted 5‑0 to deny the Long Lake Association’s request for a de novo hearing on Project Harmony’s conditional use permit (CUP), concluding the board is likely without jurisdiction to overturn a recent circuit court order that directed the permit be granted.
Outside counsel Kevin Langraph, who said his firm was retained because of the county’s involvement in the CUP application and subsequent litigation, told the board the case is “somewhat unique” because the circuit court did not remand with instructions but instead ordered the CUP be granted. “The zoning committee basically had no choice but to issue the CUP,” Langraph said, and he recommended the board deny the application for an appeal based on the facts and the law.
County corporation counsel told the board the circuit court’s ruling was based on the transcripts and documentary record from two public hearings and the briefs filed by Project Harmony and the county; the court made an oral ruling on that existing record and did not accept new evidence. Board members were told the time to appeal the circuit court decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is generally 30 days, and that no such timely appeal to the court of appeals had been filed.
Board members questioned whether facts not presented at the original hearings could justify reopening the matter. Counsel replied that new evidence should have been presented at the initial hearings or raised on appeal to the circuit court; because the circuit court had already ruled on the record, the board’s ability to revisit the decision was limited.
Members also asked what would happen if the board nevertheless held a de novo hearing and reached a different result. Attorneys warned that any contrary decision would likely be appealed and reassigned to the same circuit court judge; counsel said such a scenario could prompt immediate litigation and would probably be dismissed or reversed because the circuit court’s order carries primacy over the board’s authority.
Board member Dave Williams moved to deny the request for a de novo hearing; George seconded. On roll call the motion passed 5‑0. The minutes record Dave Williams and Jess voting yes; the chair announced the motion passed by a 5‑0 vote.
Prior to the vote, the board was also told that briefs had been exchanged (the petitioner’s brief and the county’s response were distributed) and that a rebuttal from the opposing side was due Dec. 5, with Judge Hendy expected to render a decision on Dec. 18, according to materials provided to the board.
The board ended the item with brief scheduling notes about a possible December matter and a separate variance the applicant is pursuing. The meeting adjourned following the action.
