Laserfiche WebLink
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL <br /> Burnett County <br /> 7410 County Road K, #121 715/349-2168 <br /> Siren, WI 54872 Fax 715/349-2105 <br /> David L. Grindell <br /> Corporation Counsel <br /> TO: Jim Flanigan, Zoning Administrator <br /> FROM: David L. Grindell <br /> Corporation Counsel <br /> DATE: October 12, 2012 <br /> RE: Garage permit on Long Lake Trail <br /> Dear Jim: <br /> You have asked for my opinion on how to potentially resolve an issue regarding the <br /> mistakenly issuance of a permit, by your office, for a garage on Long Lake Trail. <br /> Apparently, the permit was issued without verifying the appropriate sideline setback of <br /> the garage. In all other aspects the permit would have been authorized, as the property is <br /> large enough and does have potential building sites that would have allowed placement of <br /> the garage, in a legal manner. <br /> The law is very well settled, as we have discussed, that"a building permit grants no right <br /> to an unlawful use." In other words, the mistaken issuance of a permit, by someone in <br /> your office, does not bind the county to the illegal use. <br /> However, this could lead to a potentially harsh result, which has been specifically <br /> addressed by the Wisconsin Appellate Courts. The leading case in this area is Forest <br /> County vs. Goode. That case held that a county could prosecute a matter and ask for <br /> forfeiture and/or injunctive relief. The court was not automatically bound to grant <br /> injunctive relief. The Supreme Court in that case specifically said that a violation does <br /> not automatically end the inquiry and held that the trial court does retain significant <br /> discretion in applying equity to determine whether or not injunctive relief should be <br /> granted. The injunctive relief of course would be an injunction to remove the <br /> nonconforming structure. In using its' discretion, the court was required to look <br /> specifically at the factors considered by the board of adjustment in determining undo <br /> hardship, and also the traditional equitable consideration such as latches, estoppel or <br /> unclean hands, which in this case, would be-the wrongful issuance of the permit, and the <br /> cost already incurred by the property owner and the cost to remove the building. The <br />