AllEnergy Corporation v. Trempealeau County Environment & Land Use Committee
375 Wis. 2d 329
Wis.2017Background
- AllEnergy Corporation and AllEnergy Silica, Arcadia, LLC applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to develop a 550-acre frac-sand (non‑metallic mineral) mine in Trempealeau County in an Exclusive Agriculture 2 (EA‑2) zoning district.
- County staff deemed the application complete; a County moratorium adopted later did not apply because the application predated its effective date.
- The Trempealeau County Environment & Land Use Committee held a public hearing, received extensive public comment (both for and against), and solicited expert presentations.
- The Committee drafted conditions but ultimately voted 5–3 to deny the CUP, citing an allegedly rushed/incomplete plan, environmental and water/wetlands concerns, landscape/aesthetic and recreational impacts, and health/cultural concerns.
- AllEnergy sought certiorari review in circuit court, lost on appeal to the court of appeals, and petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court on discrete issues about jurisdiction, sufficiency of evidence, and an asserted entitlement doctrine for CUP applicants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AllEnergy) | Defendant's Argument (County/Committee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by denying a CUP based on broad "public health, safety, and welfare" considerations | Designation of mining as a conditional use in the ordinance means the use is presumptively in the public interest and the Committee may not override that legislative determination | Committee acted within delegated authority by applying the ordinance criteria (including public health/safety/welfare) to the specific site | Held: Committee kept within its jurisdiction; ordinance criteria permitted consideration of public interest factors |
| 2. Whether substantial evidence supported denial of the CUP | Public comments and lay testimony were hearsay/unreliable; expert evidence showed compliance with ordinance standards so denial lacked substantial evidence | Public testimony (including firsthand observations), expert testimony, and site‑specific environmental concerns provided rational, probative support for denial | Held: Substantial evidence supported denial; court defers to local decision so long as rational probative evidence exists |
| 3. Whether applicant is entitled to a CUP when it meets all specific ordinance conditions and additional conditions could address impacts (entitlement doctrine) | If an applicant satisfies ordinance standards and proposed conditions, it should be entitled to the permit; denial is arbitrary | Conditional uses are discretionary, not rights as of right; ordinance does not guarantee issuance even if some standards are met | Held: Court refused to adopt new entitlement doctrine; reaffirmed precedent that conditional uses are discretionary |
| 4. Whether ordinance standards (e.g., "public health, safety, general welfare") are unconstitutionally vague | Ordinance's broad standards fail to guide Committee and amount to an unconstitutional delegation | Ordinance contains numerous specific factors and is consistent with prior precedent permitting general standards to guide discretion | Held: Ordinance standards are constitutional and sufficiently specific to guide Committee action |
Key Cases Cited
- Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. Sauk Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 183 Wis. 2d 1 (1994) (upheld county ordinance standards and denied that conditional uses are uses as of right)
- Delta Biological Res., Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of City of Milwaukee, 160 Wis. 2d 905 (Ct. App. 1991) (rejected a presumption that a conditional use automatically serves the public interest)
- Town of Rhine v. Bizzell, 311 Wis. 2d 1 (2008) (reaffirmed distinction between permitted uses and discretionary conditional uses; rejected entitlement rule)
- State ex rel. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Wahner, 25 Wis. 2d 1 (1964) (struck ordinance for lack of adequate standards where guideline was too general)
- Gehin v. Wisconsin Group Ins. Bd., 278 Wis. 2d 111 (2005) (administrative bodies not bound by judicial rules of evidence but must base decisions on evidence with rational probative force)
- Oneida Seven Generations Corp. v. City of Green Bay, 362 Wis. 2d 290 (2015) (describes certiorari review standards for local governmental determinations)