Ottman v. Town of Primrose
2011 WI 18
Wis.2011Background
- Ottmans sought certiorari review of Town of Primrose Board's denial of a driveway permit for a farm residence, based on the Agricultural Productivity Clause requiring at least $6,000 annual income.
- Board interpreted 'capable of producing' income as current actual income rather than solely speculative or future income; Board also considered site impact on agricultural land.
- Initial Board decision followed by remand for Chapter 68 review; hearings occurred in 2006 with both sides presenting evidence.
- Circuit court applied Chapter 68 review with a presumption of correctness, found Board acted within law and its farm-income interpretation reasonable.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; Ottmans urged statutory certiorari scope under § 62.23(7)(e)10 and greater deference to local decisions; Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to change the framework, affirming the decision.
- Court holds Board’s interpretation entitled to presumption of correctness; record supported the Board’s finding that farm income standard was not met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of certiorari review | Ottmans seek § 62.23(7)(e)10 standards augmenting Chapter 68. | Defendant Town contends existing Chapter 68 review scope remains identical to common law certiorari. | No change to scope; Chapter 68 and § 62.23(7)(e)10 yield same four inquiries. |
| Deference to municipal interpretation of ordinance | Ottmans request more rigorous or independent scrutiny of local interpretations. | Court should defer to reasonable local interpretations when language is locally drafted and unique. | Defer to reasonable municipal interpretation when ordinance language is unique; reject wholesale grafting of administrative-deference framework. |
| Farm income interpretation | Ordinance requires showing parcel is capable of producing income, not necessarily current income. | Board's interpretation requiring current actual income is reasonable. | Board's interpretation requiring actual income is reasonable; presumption of correctness maintained. |
| evidentiary scope under § 62.23(7)(e)10 | Evidence could be taken to support the farm-income claim. | No new evidence was taken; standard should align with Brookside Poultry. | No deviation from traditional common-law certiorari when no new evidence is taken; Brookside Poultry framework applies. |
| Substantial evidence supporting findings | Record shows potential income could meet the threshold; Board's findings were not supported. | Record supports Board’s findings; Ottmans failed to prove unreasonableness or lack of rational basis. | Board’s findings were supported; Ottmans did not overcome presumption of correctness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brookside Poultry, Inc. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. Adjustment, 131 Wis.2d 101 (Wis. 1986) (establishes that with no new evidence, review follows common-law certiorari scope)
- Lamar Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals City of Milwaukee, 284 Wis.2d 1 (Wis. 2005) (recognizes presumption of correctness and governing review standards)
- Marris v. City of Cedarburg, 176 Wis.2d 14 (Wis. 1993) (deference to municipal interpretation of its own ordinance when language is local)
- Nagawicka Island Corp. v. City of Delafield (Nagawicka II), 117 Wis.2d 23 (Ct. App. 1983) (rejects independent balancing of local interests and property rights when challenging validity of ordinance)
- Ruthenberg v. Annuity & Pension Bd., 89 Wis.2d 463 (Wis. 1979) (statutory certiorari scope and certiorari framework reference)
- Ziervogel v. Washington Cnty. Bd. Adjustment, 269 Wis.2d 549 (Wis. 2004) (preservation of presumption in certiorari review)
- Kapischke v. Cnty. of Walworth, 226 Wis.2d 320 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999) (substantial evidence standard for findings of fact in certiorari)
- State ex rel. Ruthenberg v. Annuity & Pension Bd., 89 Wis.2d 463 (1979) (referenced for certiorari framework and scope)