town of trempeleau v. klein, no. 2014ap2719 (wis. app. aug. 18, 2015)

8/20/2019 Town of Trempeleau v. Klein, No. 2014AP2719 (Wis. App. Aug. 18, 2015)

1/21

COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED August 18, 2015

Diane M. Fe!gen

C"e# $% C$ut $% A&&ea"s

NOTICE

T'is $&ini$n is su()e*t t$ %ut'e e+iting. I%

&u("is'e+, t'e $%%i*ia" esi$n -i"" a&&ea in

t'e ($un+ $"u!e $% t'e O%%i*ia" Re&$ts.

A &at !a %i"e -it' t'e Su&e!e C$ut a

&etiti$n t$ eie- an a+ese +e*isi$n ( t'e

C$ut $% A&&ea"s. See /IS. STAT. 808.10

an+ R ULE 80.2.

A&&ea" N$. 2013AP241 Ci. Ct. N$. 201FO231

STATE OF /ISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT III

TO/N OF TREMPEALEAU,

PLAINTIFF6R ESPONDENT,

7.

/ENDELL P. LEIN,

DEFENDANT6APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Trempealeau

County: JOHN A. A!ON" Judge. Affirmed .

#$ %TA&'" J.$ (endell 'lein appeal) a judgment that *a) entered

after the circuit court denied hi) motion) to di)mi)) a citation for operating a

propane cannon" or +)care gun", on hi) farmland in -iolation of an ordinance

$ Thi) appeal i) decided y one judge pur)uant to (/%. %TAT. 0 123.4$536. All reference)

to the (i)con)in %tatute) are to the 37$48$9 -er)ion unle)) other*i)e noted.


2/21

No. 37$9AP31$

3

enacted y the To*n of Trempealeau.3 'lein argue) the To*n;) )care gun

ordinance i) in-alid for )e-eral rea)on). (e reject hi) argument) and affirm.

9AC:ROUND

#3 'lein" *ho o*n) and operate) a farm in the To*n of Trempealeau"

u)e) )care gun) on hi) property to deter lac


3/21

No. 37$9AP31$

4

the )care gun ordinance y operating a )care gun at an angle of le)) than forty8fi-e

degree) from a neighoring property line. 'lein pled not guilty to the citation and

al)o mo-ed to di)mi))" arguing the ordinance *a) in-alid ecau)e it: 5$6 depri-ed

him of a -e)ted right to u)e )care gun) on hi) propertyB 536 *a) preempted y the

+&ight to arm La*", (/%. %TAT. 0 @34.7@B and 546 *a) enacted *ithout appro-al

y the Trempealeau County Foard.

#9 The To*n )umitted a rief in re)pon)e to 'lein;) motion to

di)mi))" and the partie) entered into a +%tipulation of act), for purpo)e) of the

motion. A) rele-ant here" the partie) )tipulated that:

• The To*n did not apply to the Trempealeau County Foard for appro-al of

the )care gun ordinanceB

• Trempealeau County ha) +county *ide Goning", and" a) a re)ult" +action

y the County Foard *ould e re>uired, for the To*n to enact a Goning

ordinance in connection *ith )care gun)B

• The county oard did not ta


4/21

No. 37$9AP31$

9

the ordinance conflicted *ith Trempealeau County;) comprehen)i-e Goning

ordinance.

#? 'lein )umitted an affida-it in )upport of hi) )econd motion todi)mi))" in *hich he a-erred that he ha) een a farmer +all hi) life", and he

currently rai)e) crop) for )ale" a) *ell a) for dairy feed and edding. 'lein

a-erred that lac


5/21

No. 37$9AP31$

2

protect corn and crop) from predation y lac


6/21

No. 37$9AP31$

?

t*enty8)iD )econd)" and )care gun) on other portion) of 'lein;) property *ere

di)charging approDimately e-ery ninety )econd). Fortle a-erred that 'lein;) )care

gun) can e heard +for a con)iderale di)tance eyond 'lein;) property line.,

He further a-erred the to*n oard recei-ed a petition )igned y o-er )iDty area

re)ident) a)


7/21

No. 37$9AP31$

1

peace and tran>uility" )leep" property -alue)" di)tract) dri-er)" and negati-ely

impact) -i)itor) to the *ildlife re)er-e., Fortle )tated he i) a*are +of )e-eral

farmer) *ho operate farm land) )imilarly )ituated to 'lein *ithout the need

for )care gun)", and )ome of tho)e farmer) +)po


8/21

No. 37$9AP31$

@

'lein relie) on Des Jardin v. Town of reenfield " 3?3 (i). 94" 9189@" 24 N.(.3d

1@9 5$236" in *hich our )upreme court" >uoting another authority *ith appro-al"

)tated:

+=enerally )pea


9/21

No. 37$9AP31$

526 a fiDed" for*ard8loo


10/21

No. 37$9AP31$

$7

point) out" the circuit court made a factual finding that 'lein;) u)e of )care gun)

*a) not indi)tingui)hale from hi) agricultural u)e" )tating that the ordinance did

not pre-ent the agricultural u)e of 'lein;) land. Thi) finding i) not clearly

erroneou). See (/%. %TAT. 0 @72.$1536. There *a) e-idence in the record from

*hich the circuit court could rea)onaly conclude )care gun) *ere not integral to

the agricultural u)e of 'lein;) landin particular" Fortle;) a-erment that he i)

a*are of )e-eral farmer) *ho are ale to farm land )imilarly )ituated to 'lein;)

property +*ithout the need for )care gun).,

#$@ /n the )ection of hi) rief8in8chief in *hich he ad-ance) hi) -e)ted

right) argument" 'lein al)o a))ert) that the )care gun ordinance +operate) li


11/21

No. 37$9AP31$

$$

percent of the ear) of corn *ere damaged y lacuent )ection) of thi) opinion. Accordingly" *e do

not )eparately addre)) them here.

(e al)o decline to )eparately addre)) an argument ad-anced in a later )ection of 'lein;) rief that the e-idence )ho*) hi) u)e of )care gun) i) not a nui)ance. /n that )ection" 'lein argue)

that" ecau)e he ha) a -e)ted right to u)e )care gun)" the To*n cannot prohiit that practice unle))it con)titute) a nui)ance. Ho*e-er" *e ha-e already determined 'lein doe) not ha-e a -e)ted

right to u)e )care gun) on hi) property. Thu)" e-en a))uming 'lein;) u)e doe) not con)titute a

nui)ance" that fact i) in)ufficient to in-alidate the ordinance. /n)tead" a) *e eDplain in greaterdetail elo*" the ordinance" *hich *a) enacted under the To*n;) nonGoning police po*er" i)

-alid if it ear) any rational and rea)onale relation)hip to a police po*er purpo)e. See infra" ##4284?.

1 Again" interpretation of an ordinance pre)ent) a >ue)tion of la* that *e re-ie*

independently. See "wiefelhofer " 44@ (i). 3d 9@@" #37.


12/21

No. 37$9AP31$

$3

comprehen)i-e Goning ordinance" *hich )tate)" in rele-ant part" +=eneral

agricultural practice) )hall e allo*ed in all agricultural di)trict) *ithout i))uance

of a land u)e permit., Trempealeau Cty." (i)." Comprehen)i-e Moning

Ordinance 0 9.745$65a6. /t i) undi)puted that 'lein;) property i) )uject to the

comprehen)i-e Goning ordinance and i) located in an agricultural di)trict.

Although the comprehen)i-e Goning ordinance doe) not define the term +general

agricultural practice)", 'lein argue) hi) u)e of )care gun) indi)putaly fall) *ithin

that term. 'lein al)o argue) 0 9.74;) reference to +general agricultural practice),

demon)trate) an intent to protect agricultural practice) +along *ith the underlying

agricultural u)e., Thu)" 'lein argue) any permit re>uirement for hi) u)e of )care

gun) i) prohiited y the comprehen)i-e Goning ordinance" *hich i) inding on

the To*n.

#3$ Ho*e-er" 'lein;) argument that the To*n;) )care gun ordinance

-iolate) the comprehen)i-e Goning ordinance re)t) on the faulty premi)e that the

permit re>uired y the )care gun ordinance i) a land u)e permit. The

comprehen)i-e Goning ordinance define) a +land u)e permit, a) +a permit" i))ued

y the Moning Admini)trator" )tating that a u)e or a )tructure may e

e)tali)hed" eDpanded or enlarged )uject to any condition) placed on the permit

and the pro-i)ion) of thi) Ordinance., Id." 0 [email protected]. The term +u)e", in turn" i)

defined a) +the purpo)e or acti-ity for *hich a parcel of land" or )tructure5)6

thereon" i) de)igned" arranged" intended" occupied" or maintained., Id.

#33 Applying the)e definition)" the permit re>uired y the )care gun

ordinance i) not a +land u)e permit, ecau)e it doe) not attempt to licen)e a +u)e.,

/n other *ord)" 'lein;) property i) not +de)igned" arranged" intended" occupied" or

maintained, to fire )care gun). See id. &ather" a) eDplained ao-e" firing )care

gun) i) merely one type of agricultural acti-ity 'lein employ) a) part of the


13/21

No. 37$9AP31$

$4

o-erall agricultural u)e of hi) land. Accordingly" ecau)e the permit re>uired y

the )care gun ordinance i) not a +land u)e permit", a) the comprehen)i-e Goning

ordinance define) that term" the permit re>uirement in the )care gun ordinance

doe) not -iolate the comprehen)i-e Goning ordinance.

#34 /n addition" *e o)er-e that 0 9.745$65c6 of the comprehen)i-e

Goning ordinance li)t) +arnyard)" feedlot)" and u)e) in-ol-ing agricultural

)tructure), a) eDample) of +general agricultural practice)., Id." 0 9.745$65c6.

The)e eDample) all pertain to location) or )tructure) found on agricultural land and

are different in character from the u)e of )care gun). Thi) further )upport) our

conclu)ion that the permit re>uirement in the )care gun ordinance doe) not conflict

*ith the county;) comprehen)i-e Goning ordinance.

III. /ISCONSIN STAT. 82.08

#39 'lein neDt argue) the )care gun ordinance i) in-alid ecau)e it

conflict) *ith and i) preempted y the +&ight to arm La*", (/%. %TAT. 0 @34.7@.

%ection @34.7@ i) found in (/%. %TAT. ch. @34" *hich deal) *ith nui)ance action).

/t egin) *ith the follo*ing )tatement of legi)lati-e purpo)e:

The legi)lature find) that de-elopment in rural area) andchange) in agricultural technology" practice) and )cale ofoperation ha-e increa)ingly tended to create conflict) et*een agricultural and other u)e) of land. The legi)lature elie-e) that" to the eDtent po))ile con)i)tent *ith good pulic policy" the la* )hould not hamper agricultural production or the u)e of modern agricultural technology.The legi)lature therefore deem) it in the e)t intere)t of the

)tate to e)tali)h limit) on the remedie) a-ailale in tho)econflict) *hich reach the judicial )y)tem. The legi)laturefurther a))ert) it) elief that local unit) of go-ernment"through the eDerci)e of their Goning po*er" can e)t pre-ent)uch conflict) from ari)ing in the future" and the legi)latureurge) local unit) of go-ernment to u)e their Goning po*eraccordingly.


14/21

No. 37$9AP31$

$9

%ec. @34.7@5$6. The )tatute then pro-ide) that an +agricultural u)e, or

+agricultural practice,@ may not e found to e a nui)ance if all of the follo*ing

apply: 5$6 the u)e or practice +i) conducted on" or on a pulic right8of8*ay

adjacent to" land that *a) in agricultural u)e *ithout )u)tantial interruption efore

the plaintiff egan the u)e of property that the plaintiff allege) *a) interfered *ith

y the agricultural u)e or agricultural practiceB, and 536 the u)e or practice +doe)

not pre)ent a )u)tantial threat to pulic health or )afety., %ec. @34.7@5465a6. The

)tatute al)o limit) the remedie) a-ailale if an agricultural u)e or practice i) found

to e a nui)ance. See 0 @34.7@54656.

@ The term +agricultural u)e, i) defined a):

5a6 Any of the follo*ing acti-itie) conducted for the purpo)e of

producing an income or li-elihood:

$. Crop or forage production.

3. 'eeping li-e)toc


15/21

No. 37$9AP31$

$2

#32 'lein and the To*n agree that (/%. %TAT. 0 @34.7@ protect) oth

agricultural u)e) and practice). They al)o agree that the )tatute )et) forth a

heightened )tandard for determining that an agricultural u)e or practice i) a

nui)ance. Fa)ed on the)e propo)ition)" 'lein argue) the )tatute gi-e) farmer) a

+-e)ted intere)t, in continuing their e)tali)hed agricultural u)e) and practice).

'lein therefore a))ert) that" in order to regulate an e)tali)hed agricultural u)e or

practice" a local go-ernment mu)t fir)t find that the u)e or practice con)titute) a

nui)ance under the higher )tandard )et forth in 0 @34.7@5465a6that i)" that it

pre)ent) a )u)tantial threat to pulic health or )afety. 'lein contend) the To*n

did not" and could not" maue)tion of la* for our independent re-ie*. Do+ino

v. -alworth Ct!." $$@ (i). 3d 9@@" 94" 491 N.(.3d $1 5Ct. App. $@96. (hen interpreting a)tatute" our ojecti-e +i) to determine *hat the )tatute mean) )o that it may e gi-en it) full"

proper" and intended effect., State e rel. /alal v. Circ(it Co(rt for Dane Ct!." 3779 (/ 2@"

#99" 31$ (i). 3d ?44" ?@$ N.(.3d $$7. Our analy)i) egin) *ith the plain language of the)tatute. Id." #92. /f the )tatute;) meaning can e di)cerned from it) plain language" *e need not

re)ort to eDtrin)ic )ource) of interpretation" )uch a) legi)lati-e hi)tory. Id." #9?.

$7 See /alal " 31$ (i). 3d ?44" #9? 5+%tatutory language i) interpreted in the conteDt in*hich it i) u)edB not in i)olation ut a) part of a *holeB in relation to the language of )urrounding

or clo)ely8related )tatute).,6.


16/21

No. 37$9AP31$

$?

local go-ernment) from regulating agricultural u)e) and practice) a)ent a finding

that tho)e u)e) or practice) meet the heightened nui)ance )tandard )et forth in the

)tatute.

#31 'lein al)o argue) (/%. %TAT. 0 @34.7@ preempt) the To*n;) )care

gun ordinance.$$ Again" *e di)agree. our factor) guide our determination of

*hether a political )udi-i)ion;) action) are preempted y )tate legi)lation:

5$6 *hether the legi)lature ha) eDpre))ly *ithdra*n the po*er of political )udi-i)ion) to actB or 536 *hether the political )udi-i)ion;) action) logically conflict *ith the)tate legi)lationB or 546 *hether the political )udi-i)ion;)action) defeat the purpo)e of the )tate legi)lationB or596 *hether the political )udi-i)ion;) action) are contraryto the )pirit of the )tate legi)lation.

0da+s v. State Livestoc# Facilities Siting Review Bd." 37$3 (/ @2" #43" 493

(i). 3d 999" @37 N.(.3d 979. None of the)e factor) are met in the in)tant ca)e.

#3@ ir)t" y enacting (/%. %TAT. 0 @34.7@" the legi)lature did not

eDpre))ly *ithdra* the po*er of local go-ernment) to regulate agricultural

practice). Fy it) plain language" 0 @34.7@ clearly and unamiguou)ly applie) only

to nui)ance action). Nothing in the )tatute indicate) that the higher )tandard it )et)

forth for nui)ance litigation applie) to or pre-ent) local regulation of agricultural

acti-ity. 'lein argue) that" ecau)e the legi)lati-e purpo)e )tatement in

0 @34.7@5$6 urge) local go-ernment) to u)e their Goning authority to addre))

conflict) et*een agriculture and other land u)e)" the )tatute prohiit) local

go-ernment) from u)ing their nonGoning police po*er to regulate agricultural

practice). Ho*e-er" that 0 @34.7@5$6 )pecifically mention) Goning doe) not

$$ Thi) pre)ent) a >ue)tion of la* that *e re-ie* independently. See La#e Be(lah

'g+t. Dist. v. $illage of %. Tro!" 37$$ (/ 22" #$$" 442 (i). 3d 3" 1 N.(.3d 1@1.


17/21

No. 37$9AP31$

$1

amount to an eDpre)) *ithdra*al of local go-ernment); authority to regulate

agricultural practice) u)ing their nonGoning police po*er.

#3 %econd" the To*n;) )care gun ordinance doe) not logically conflict*ith (/%. %TAT. 0 @34.7@. The ordinance and )tatute operate in completely

different )phere): the ordinance regulate) a particular type of agricultural practice"

pur)uant to the To*n;) police po*er" *hile the )tatute protect) farmer) from

nui)ance action) under certain )pecified condition).

#47 Third" the )care gun ordinance doe) not defeat the purpo)e of (/%.

%TAT. 0 @34.7@" *hich i) to protect farmer) from nui)ance action) )o a) not to

hamper agricultural production. See 0 @34.7@5$6" 546. Again" the )care gun

ordinance merely regulate) farmer); u)e of )care gun). e)pite the ordinance"

farmer) are )till protected from nui)ance action) y the pro-i)ion) )et forth in

0 @34.7@.

#4$ ourth and finally" the To*n;) ordinance i) not incon)i)tent *ith the

)pirit of (/%. %TAT. 0 @34.7@. The )tatute reflect) an intent to protect farmer) from

nui)ance action)" ut it al)o recogniGe) that conflict) et*een agricultural u)e) and

other land u)e) *ill occur" and it urge) local go-ernment) to ta


18/21

No. 37$9AP31$

$@

I7. A(itainess

#44 La)tly" 'lein argue) the )care gun ordinance i) in-alid ecau)e it i)

aritrary. Thi) argument fail) for )e-eral rea)on).

#49 ir)t" 'lein doe) not cite any authority de)criing *hat ma


19/21

No. 37$9AP31$

$

di)tract) dri-er)" and negati-ely impact) -i)itor) to the *ildlife re)er-e., He al)o

a-erred that he recei-ed multiple complaint) regarding the noi)e cau)ed y 'lein;)

)care gun)" and that the to*n oard recei-ed a petition )igned y o-er )iDty

re)ident) a)


20/21

No. 37$9AP31$

37

he re-ie*ed numerou) )tudie) and report) regarding the effecti-ene)) of )care

gun). /n addition" Fortle;) affida-it )ho*) that the To*n recei-ed input from

other area farmer). Fa)ed on thi) information" Fortle a-erred that lac


21/21

town of trempeleau v. klein, no. 2014ap2719 (wis. app. aug. 18, 2015)

Documents