Carlin Lake Ass'n, Inc. v. Carlin Club Props., LLC
929 N.W.2d 228
Wis. Ct. App.2019Background
- Carlin Club owns two adjacent riparian parcels in Vilas County (an R-1 single-family/residential zoning district and shoreland zone); it operated a lodge/resort on one parcel and has wells on both parcels.
- Carlin Club tested and upgraded the Lodge well (50 gpm), reconfigured plumbing and built truck access and a shed, intending to pump water into tanker trucks for off-site bottling and commercial sale.
- Vilas County zoning officials and the county zoning administrator advised the planned commercial pumping would violate the R-1/shoreland zoning rules; county corporation counsel issued a contrary memorandum concluding the activity did not introduce a new nonconforming use.
- Seven adjacent riparian property owners (the Landowners) and a local association sued under WIS. STAT. § 59.69(11) seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief; the circuit court issued a temporary injunction, later found Carlin Club violated it, and then granted the plaintiffs summary judgment and a permanent injunction.
- On appeal the court affirmed summary judgment as to the individual Landowners, held the action was ripe, found equitable grounds supported injunctive relief, rejected the preemption argument, but concluded the Association lacked statutory authority under § 59.69(11) and must be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parties may maintain an enforcement action under WIS. STAT. § 59.69(11) | Landowners: §59.69(11) authorizes any owner of real estate within the district to sue without showing special damage; Association: argued it could sue via organizational standing | Carlin Club: statute requires a property owner to show special damage; Association lacks property interest so cannot sue | Held: Individual Landowners may sue under §59.69(11) without showing special damage; Association cannot because it does not own real property in the affected district (statutory interpretation controls) |
| Ripeness for declaratory/injunctive relief | Landowners: anticipatory relief is permissible where there is sufficient probability of future ordinance violation | Carlin Club: action was not ripe because no actual zoning violation yet | Held: Case was ripe — plaintiff showed sufficient probability (pump tests, new pump/wellhead, driveway/shed construction, public statements) that a violation would occur |
| Burden and equitable factors for issuing injunction | Landowners: injunction proper to prevent anticipated violation; once violation established, injunction generally granted | Carlin Club: court erred in shifting burden to defendant to show ‘‘compelling equitable reasons’’ not to enjoin | Held: Court erred in presuming defendant must show compelling reasons when violation is only anticipated; but on facts, equitable factors nonetheless favor injunction, so injunction affirmed |
| Preemption by DNR groundwater authority | Landowners: zoning ordinance regulates land use/shoreland protection and does not conflict with DNR groundwater regulation | Carlin Club: zoning cannot supplant DNR authority to regulate water use | Held: No preemption — local shoreland zoning purpose (protect waters/shorelands) does not conflict or ‘‘diametrically oppose’’ DNR groundwater regulation policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Moustakis v. DOJ, 368 Wis. 2d 677, 880 N.W.2d 142 (2016) (statutory-interpretation framing of standing to "maintain an action")
- Forest County v. Goode, 219 Wis. 2d 654, 579 N.W.2d 715 (1998) (discusses injunctions to enforce county shoreland zoning and public interest in enforcement)
- Columbia County v. Bylewski, 94 Wis. 2d 153, 288 N.W.2d 129 (1980) (predecessor statute; standard for statutory injunctive relief under county zoning enforcement)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004) (principles of statutory interpretation)
- Willow Creek Ranch, L.L.C. v. Town of Shelby, 235 Wis. 2d 409, 611 N.W.2d 693 (2000) (local ordinances invalid only when they regulate identical activity and are diametrically opposed to state policy)