An important moratoria case of first impression was accepted this month by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Wisconsin Realtors Ass’n, Inc. v. Town of West Point 2007 WL 1933930 (Wis.App. 2007) poses the question of whether towns in Wisconsin may impose moratoria on new development of land while updating land use plans. This case is of national significance since most states do not provide specific statutory authority to municipalities for the adoption of moratoria. Rather, the authority has been found by the courts to exist as part of the general grant of authority to localities to develop and update plans and land use regulations.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeal chose to certify the issue immediately to the Supreme Court finding the issue to be a matter of statewide importance following the recent state “smart growth statute” that requires Wisconsin municipalities to develop updated comprehensive land use plans by 2010. See, WIS. STAT. § 66.1001 (2005-06). In the present case, the Town of West Point enacted an 18 month moratorium “on the acceptance, review, and approval by Town officials, staff, or consultants of any applications for a land division or subdivision” while the Town was in the process of updating its comprehensive land use plan. The expressed purpose of the ordinance was to “eliminate development pressures within the Town which would otherwise increase during the planning process because landowners and developers might seek to rush their projects in order to gain approval before the planning process can be further completed by the Town.”
Absent a specific grant of statutory authority to towns for the enactment of moratoria, the town relies on the general grants of authority to plan for the orderly growth and development of the municipality, which have been upheld in other states to support the adoption of local moratoria laws. The realtors argue that not only has the state not granted this specific authority to towns, but that there is a grant of authority under Wisconsin law to cities that specifically authorizes interim zoning. Therefore, they claim that the legislature must not have intended for towns to possess this power. A number of organizations have submitted amicus curiae briefs in the actions below, and it is expected that they will file briefs before the Supreme Court. We will report back when the Supreme Court hands down a decision later this year.
Categories:
