Limiting the authority of local governments to regulate development on substandard lots and require the merging of lots; requiring a political subdivision to issue a conditional use permit under certain circumstances; standards for granting certain zoning variances; local ordinances related to repair, rebuilding, and maintenance of certain nonconforming structures; shoreland zoning of, and the removal of material from the bed of, certain small, private ponds; inverse condemnation proceedings; and the right to display the flag of the United States. (FE)

1. Conveying an ownership interest in a substandard lot.

2. Using a substandard lot as a building site if two conditions are met: the substandard lot has not been developed with one or more of its structures placed partly on an adjacent lot; and the substandard lot is developed to comply with all other ordinances of the political subdivision.

Under the bill, a substandard lot is defined as a lot that met any applicable lot size requirements when it was created, but does not meet current lot size requirements.

merging lots This bill prohibits a state agency, city, village, town, or county from requiring that one or more lots be merged with another lot without the consent of the owners of the lots that are to be merged.

conditional use permits This bill requires a city, village, town, or county to issue a conditional use permit to an applicant who meets, or agrees to meet, all of the requirements and conditions specified by the political subdivision. Under the bill, both the application, and the political subdivision's decision on the permit application, must be based on substantial evidence, although public testimony alone is not substantial evidence and cannot be the sole basis for a political subdivision to deny a conditional use permit. Once granted, a conditional use permit may remain in effect as long as the conditions under which it was granted are followed, except that a political subdivision may include conditions relating to the permit's duration, and the ability of the applicant to transfer or renew a permit.

variances Under current law, a city, a village, or a town that is authorized to exercise village powers (collectively, “municipality”) or a county is authorized to enact zoning ordinances that regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures; the percentage of lot that may be occupied; the size of yards and other open spaces; the density of population; and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for various purposes.

A municipality's board of appeals or a county's board of adjustment is authorized under current law to authorize a variance from the terms of a zoning ordinance. A “use" variance grants permission for a use that is not permitted by the zoning ordinance and an “area" variance relaxes restrictions on dimensions, such as setback, frontage, height, bulk, density, and area. To grant a variance, a board of appeals or board of adjustment must find four things:

1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest.

2. Substantial justice will be done by granting the variance.

3. The variance is needed so that the spirit of the ordinance is observed.

4. Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship.

Under this bill, a property owner bears the burden of proving “unnecessary hardship" by demonstrating either of the following:

1. For an area variance, that strict compliance with a zoning ordinance would unreasonably prevent the property owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity with the zoning ordinance unnecessarily burdensome.

2. For a use variance, that strict compliance with a zoning ordinance would leave the property owner with no reasonable use of the property in the absence of a variance. In both situations, the property owner bears the burden of proving that the unnecessary hardship is based on conditions unique to the property, rather than personal considerations, and that the unnecessary hardship was not created by the property owner.

nonconforming structures Under current law, zoning ordinances of cities, villages, towns, or counties may not prohibit or limit based on cost the repair, maintenance, renovation, or remodeling of a nonconforming structure. A nonconforming structure is “a dwelling or other building that existed lawfully before the current zoning ordinance was enacted or amended, but that does not conform with one or more of the development regulations in the current zoning ordinance.” This bill expands this prohibition, adding a prohibition on requiring a variance, covering rebuilding, and specifying that a part of a nonconforming structure is covered. With these modifications, no ordinance of a political subdivision may prohibit, limit based on cost, or require a variance for the repair, maintenance, renovation, rebuilding, or remodeling of a nonconforming structure or any part of a nonconforming structure.

private ponds This bill exempts certain small, private ponds from the permitting requirements for removing material from the bed of a navigable body of water and from shoreland zoning laws.

Current law generally prohibits a person from removing material from the bed of a navigable body of water unless the Department of Natural Resources has issued an individual permit or a general permit authorizing the removal. This bill adds an exception to these permitting requirements for the removal of material from the bed of a self-contained pond that is five acres or less in size, has no public access, and is located on and entirely surrounded by land privately owned by the same person.

Current law requires each county to zone by ordinance all shorelands in its unincorporated area. Shorelands are defined under current law as the area within certain distances from the ordinary high-water mark of navigable waters.

Navigable waters are defined under current law as Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, all natural inland lakes and all streams, ponds, sloughs, flowages, and other waters, including the Wisconsin portion of boundary waters, that are navigable. This bill excludes from the definition of navigable waters a pond that is not hydrologically connected to a natural navigable waterway, does not discharge into a natural navigable waterway except as a result of storm events, is five acres or less in size, has no public access, and is entirely surrounded by land privately owned by the same person.

REGULATORY TAKINGS; EMINENT DOMAIN This bill codifies the standard adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Zealy v. City of Waukesha , 201 Wis. 2d 265, 548 N.W.2d 528 (1996), for evaluating whether a regulation enacted by a governmental entity has the effect of taking a person's property without paying just compensation.

Under current law, if a person's property is occupied by an entity that possesses the power of eminent domain (a condemnor), but the condemnor has not exercised that power (and has not, therefore, compensated the property owner), the owner may commence an inverse condemnation action against the condemnor. If the property owner is successful, the court may order the condemnor to acquire the owner's interest in the affected property, resulting in compensation being paid by the condemnor to the owner.

Currently, under Zealy , a property owner may receive compensation when a government restriction imposed by a condemnor deprives that owner of all or substantially all practical use of the property. In order to determine whether the government-imposed restriction deprives the owner of all or substantially all practical use of the property, the court considers three factors: 1) the nature and character of the government action; 2) the severity of the economic impact of the restriction on the plaintiff; and 3) the extent to which the regulation interferes with the plaintiff's investment-backed expectations in the property.

The bill allows a property owner to bring an action under the inverse condemnation law alleging that a restriction imposed by a governmental unit deprives the owner of all or substantially all practical use of the owner's property.

If a court finds that the governmental unit has effected a regulatory taking, the court must order the governmental unit to do one of the following:

1. Pay to the owner the amount of the reduction in fair market value of the property.

2. Rescind the restriction that resulted in the regulatory taking.

Further, the bill specifies that, when a court determines the compensation that is owed to an owner whose property is taken under the eminent domain law, the court must determine the value of the property according to each individual tax parcel that is determined to have been taken in whole or in part, regardless of whether the tax parcel is under contiguous, common ownership with other tax parcels. Under current law, in Spiegelberg v. State , 2006 WI 75, 291 Wis. 2d, 717 N.W.2d 641, in the case of a partial taking that affects multiple contiguous, commonly-owned parcels, a court may determine the fair market value of the whole property based on the sum of the values of the individual tax parcels or the value of the tax parcels together as one unit, whichever value more adequately reflects the property's most advantageous use. Under the bill, the court must determine the fair market value based on each individual tax parcel that is taken in whole or in part.

right to display the flag of the united states Currently, the federal Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 generally prohibits a condominium association, housing cooperative, or homeowners' association (organization) from adopting or enforcing a policy, or entering into an agreement, that would restrict or prevent a member of the organization from displaying the flag of the United States on residential property that the member owns or to which the member has the right to exclusive possession and use. This bill creates a similar provision in Wisconsin law with respect to housing cooperatives and homeowners' associations. Wisconsin law currently prohibits including in any condominium documents a provision that prohibits a condominium unit owner from displaying the flag.