Michael Anderson v. Town of Newbold, 954 N.W.2d 323

Michael Anderson owned a Lake Mildred parcel with 358.43 feet of shoreline and sought to split it into two lots (195 ft and 163.43 ft frontage).
Town of Newbold Ordinance 13.13 set a 225-foot minimum shoreland frontage for that lake; the Town Plan Commission recommended denial and the Town Board denied Anderson's subdivision application for noncompliance.
Anderson challenged the denial by certiorari, arguing the Town's shoreland frontage requirement was an impermissible shoreland zoning regulation preempted by state/county shoreland standards (Wis. Stat. § 59.692).
The circuit court and court of appeals upheld the Town, concluding the ordinance was enacted under the Town’s subdivision authority (Wis. Stat. § 236.45) rather than shoreland zoning authority.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court (majority) affirmed, holding the ordinance is a permissible exercise of subdivision authority under § 236.45 and therefore the Town proceeded on a correct theory of law; a dissent argued § 59.692(2)(b) preempts later town shoreland restrictions unless grandfathered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Town's 225-ft shoreland frontage rule is an impermissible shoreland zoning regulation	Anderson: The ordinance is effectively shoreland zoning that conflicts with county/state shoreland standards and exceeds town authority under § 59.692	Town: The rule is a subdivision regulation enacted under § 236.45 and thus valid; § 59.692 limits county zoning, not town subdivision ordinances	Majority: The ordinance is a subdivision ordinance under § 236.45 and permissible; § 59.692's zoning restrictions do not apply. Affirmed.
Whether county shoreland zoning standards (and § 59.692) preempt the Town's more restrictive shoreland subdivision requirements	Anderson: § 59.692 prohibits local shoreland regulation more restrictive than state standards and preempts later town restrictions	Town: § 59.692 governs county shoreland zoning; it does not strip towns of subdivision authority to adopt stricter rules under ch. 236	Majority: § 59.692 does not apply because the Town acted under subdivision authority. Dissent: § 59.692(2)(b) makes preexisting town shoreland restrictions the only ones that survive county ordinances, so the Town's later restriction is preempted.

Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004) (statutory interpretation principles)
Town of Sun Prairie v. Storms, 110 Wis. 2d 58, 327 N.W.2d 642 (1983) (distinguishing zoning and subdivision powers; lot-size regulation can stem from ch. 236)
Zwiefelhofer v. Town of Cooks Valley, 338 Wis. 2d 488, 809 N.W.2d 362 (2012) (functional test to determine whether an ordinance is zoning)
Oneida Seven Generations Corp. v. City of Green Bay, 362 Wis. 2d 290, 865 N.W.2d 162 (2015) (scope of certiorari review of municipal action)
Wisconsin Dolls, LLC v. Town of Dell Prairie, 342 Wis. 2d 350, 815 N.W.2d 690 (2012) (four-part certiorari review framework)
R.W. Docks & Slips v. State, 244 Wis. 2d 497, 628 N.W.2d 781 (2001) (state trust and public interest in navigable waters)
Forest Cnty. v. Goode, 219 Wis. 2d 654, 579 N.W.2d 715 (1998) (purpose of shoreland zoning: protect navigable waters and public rights)