Tri-County Paving, Inc. v. Town of Dane Town Board, 2024AP001730

Tri-County applied for a Dane County conditional use permit to operate a quarry in the Town of Dane. 1
After public hearings and submissions from Tri-County, the Town denied the permit because Tri-County met only one applicable ordinance condition. 2
The Town found the application failed conditions involving public health and safety, neighborhood impacts, surrounding development, access roads and traffic, and consistency with comprehensive plans. 3
Tri-County sought certiorari review in circuit court, which denied relief. 4
On appeal, Tri-County argued the Town used the wrong legal theory, exceeded its jurisdiction, and lacked substantial evidence. 5
The court of appeals affirmed under certiorari review. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Act 67 require the Town to propose additional CUP conditions before denial? 7	Tri-County said the Town had to propose reasonable conditions before denying the permit.	The Town said the ordinance failures alone justified denial.	No; Act 67 did not require proposed additional conditions. 8
Did the Town use an incorrect theory of law in applying ordinance conditions? 9	Tri-County claimed the ordinance standards were not enforceable conditions and were vague guideposts.	The Town said the ordinance expressly made all listed standards conditions for approval.	No; the Town reasonably treated the ordinance standards as permit conditions. 10
Did the Town exceed its jurisdiction by relying on road-safety concerns? 11	Tri-County argued another town controlled the access roads, so Dane could not deny based on road safety.	The Town said it could consider effects on Town residents and traffic under the ordinance.	No; Tri-County identified no authority limiting the Town's consideration of road impacts. 12
Was the denial unsupported by substantial evidence? 13	Tri-County said the Town relied on speculation, preference, and no studies or expert proof.	The Town said the record contained testimony, photos, articles, and other facts supporting denial.	No; substantial evidence supported the denial, and Tri-County failed to meet its burden. 14

State ex rel. Harris v. Annuity & Pension Bd., 87 Wis. 2d 646 (Wis. 1979) (certiorari review looks to the municipal decision, not the circuit court's 15)
Ottman v. Town of Primrose, 332 Wis. 2d 3 (Wis. 2011) (sets the four certiorari questions and presumption of correctness 16)
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation begins with the text and plain meaning 17)
State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992) (undeveloped arguments lacking supporting authority may be rejected 18)
United Coop. v. Frontier FS Coop., 304 Wis. 2d 750 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) (failure to respond to an argument in a reply brief may be treated as concession 19)
Lamar Cent. Outdoor, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Milw., 284 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2005) (meaningful certiorari review requires a record sufficient to review the decision 20)
Forshee v. Neuschwander, 381 Wis. 2d 757 (Wis. 2018) (zoning restrictions are strictly construed, but not beyond plain statutory text 21)