Lake City Corp. v. City of Mequon

• Citation: 558 N.W.2d 100,207 Wis.2d 155
• Decision Date: 30 January 1997
• Docket Number: No. 94-3240,94-3240
• Parties: LAKE CITY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF MEQUON, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 100

558 N.W.2d 100

207 Wis.2d 155

LAKE CITY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF MEQUON, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner.

No. 94-3240.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Argued Dec. 5, 1996.

Decided Jan. 30, 1997.

For the defendant-respondent-petitioner there were briefs by John L. DeStefanis, Donald L. Mabry and Prieve & Meyer, S.C., Milwaukee and oral argument by John L. DeStefanis.

For the plaintiff-appellant there was a brief by Alan Marcuvitz, Andrea Roschke and Weiss, Berzowski, Brady & Donahue, Milwaukee and oral argument by Andrea Roschke.

Amicus curiae brief was filed by Richard A. Lehmann and Boardman, Suhr, Curry & Field, Madison, for the Wisconsin Chapter of the American Planning Association.

Amicus curiae brief was filed by Curtis A. Witynski and League of Wisconsin Municipalities and Eunice Gibson, James M. Voss and City of Madison, all of Madison, for the League of Wisconsin Municipalities and City of Madison.

N. PATRICK CROOKS, Justice.

The City of Mequon (Mequon) seeks review of a published decision of the court of appeals, ¹ which reversed and remanded a judgment of the Circuit Court for Ozaukee County, Joseph D. McCormack, Judge. The court of appeals held that, under Wis. Stat. § 236.13(1)(c) (1991-92) ², a local master plan is consistent with an official map only to the extent the master plan reflects issues encompassed in the official map. Accordingly, the court of appeals held that Mequon's Plan Commission (Plan Commission) improperly denied preliminary plat approval to Lake City Corporation (Lake City) on the grounds that the plat conflicted with an element contained only in the master plan. We conclude that, under § 236.13(1)(c), a master plan is consistent with an official map if any common elements contained in both the master plan and official map are not contradictory. We further conclude that a master plan is consistent with an official map even if the master plan contains additional elements that the official map does not. We therefore hold that a city plan commission may rely on an element contained solely in a master plan to reject plat approval. ³ Thus, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.

I.

In 1977, Lake City purchased 59 acres of land located in Mequon, Wisconsin. ⁴ In March 1984, Lake City petitioned Mequon to rezone its property from RS-2 and RS-2(OH) zoning classifications to RS-3(OGP), RS-4(OGP), and C-3 zoning classifications. This proposed rezoning would allow Lake City to construct duplex structures on approximately 16 acres, and single family units on approximately 30 acres. Lake City could use the remaining 10 acres for commercial development. Mequon, by action of its common council, voted to rezone the property in substantially this manner. ⁵

In the summer of 1992, Mequon began the process of comprehensively revising its master plan and zoning ordinances, due to growth in the city. According to Mequon, it had informed the community of its new planning goals by 1993; therefore, developers began submitting plans for dormant projects to the Plan Commission in an attempt to gain approval before Mequon completed the revision of its master plan and zoning ordinances.

It appears that Lake City was one such developer. Lake City had taken no affirmative steps to develop its property since 1984, when Mequon had rezoned the property as requested. However, on February 1, 1993, Lake City applied for preliminary plat approval. The plat provided for 33 single family residential lots of no less than 30,000 square feet in the RS-3 area, and 18 lots consisting of 56 units in the multi-family RS-4 area. ⁶ The plat conformed with existing zoning ordinances.

The Plan Commission was originally scheduled to consider Lake City's proposed plat for approval on March 15, 1993, but it tabled this matter until March 29, 1993. On March 29, the Plan Commission was also scheduled to consider a resolution proposing to amend Mequon's land use map, or comprehensive zoning plan, contained in Mequon's master plan. If adopted, the resolution would amend an area of the land use map which included Lake City's property, by limiting such area to residential uses of 1.5 acre minimum lot size per dwelling unit.

On March 29, 1993, the Plan Commission voted to adopt this amendment. The Plan Commission then voted to deny Lake City's request for preliminary plat approval, because the proposed plat conflicted with the newly adopted amendment to the master plan. In particular, Lake City's plat proposed a total of 56 residential units, whereas the revised master plan allowed for a maximum capacity of 37 residential units. ⁷

Lake City commenced this action on April 27, 1993, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 236.13(5). The circuit court held that under Wis. Stat. §§ 62.23(2), 62.23(3)(b), and 236.13(1)(c), the Plan Commission had authority to deny Lake City's application for plat approval based upon the newly enacted amendment to the master plan. The circuit court concluded that its interpretation of these statutes was supported by the following dicta in Reynolds v. Waukesha County Park & Planning Comm'n, 109 Wis.2d 56, 324 N.W.2d 897 (Ct.App.1982): "A 'local master plan' denotes a plan adopted by a municipal plan commission or the governing body of a municipality. [Citation omitted.] No such plan existed in the instant case. Had there been one, only [the village of] Butler would have had authority to use it as a basis for disapproval of the plat." Id. at 63, 324 N.W.2d 897.

The court of appeals reversed. Relying primarily on Gordie Boucher Lincoln-Mercury Madison, Inc. v. City of Madison Plan Comm'n, 178 Wis.2d 74, 503 N.W.2d 265 (Ct.App.), review denied, 508 N.W.2d 421 (1993) (hereinafter "Gordie Boucher "), the court concluded that Wis. Stat. § 236.13(1)(c) authorizes a city plan commission "to look towards master plans only to the limited extent that the master plan reflects issues encompassed in the locality's official map." Lake City Corp., 199 Wis.2d at 360, 544 N.W.2d 600. The court further determined that the legislative history of § 236.13(1)(c) supported its decision, because it concluded that the legislature modified this statute in 1979 to "eliminate any chance that a plan commission could use its master plan in this manner." Id. at 363, 544 N.W.2d 600.

II.

The sole issue presented for review is whether Wis. Stat. § 236.13(1)(c) authorizes a city plan commission to deny plat approval based solely upon an element contained in a master plan. Statutory interpretation is a question of law. E.g., Stockbridge School Dist. v. Department of Pub. Instruction Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 202 Wis.2d 214, 219, 550 N.W.2d 96 (1996); Jungbluth v. Hometown, Inc., 201 Wis.2d 320, 327, 548 N.W.2d 519 (1996). This court reviews questions of law de novo, without giving deference to the decisions of the lower courts. E.g., Jungbluth, 201 Wis.2d at 327, 548 N.W.2d 519; Hughes v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 197 Wis.2d 973, 978, 542 N.W.2d 148 (1996).

The goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. E.g., Stockbridge School Dist., 202 Wis.2d at 219, 550 N.W.2d 96; Hughes, 197 Wis.2d at 978, 542 N.W.2d 148. To achieve this goal, we first resort to the plain language of the statute itself. E.g., Jungbluth, 201 Wis.2d at 327, 548 N.W.2d 519; In re Interest of Kyle S.-G., 194 Wis.2d 365, 371, 533 N.W.2d 794 (1995). In the absence of statutory definitions, this court construes all words according to their common and approved usage, which may be established by dictionary definitions. Swatek v. County of Dane, 192 Wis.2d 47, 61, 531 N.W.2d 45 (1995) (quoting State v. Gilbert, 115 Wis.2d 371, 377-78, 340 N.W.2d 511, 514 (1983)). ⁸ In addition, it is a basic rule of statutory construction that effect is to be given to every word of a statute if possible, so that no portion of the statute is rendered superfluous. County of Columbia v. Bylewski, 94 Wis.2d 153, 164, 288 N.W.2d 129 (1980); State v. Wachsmuth, 73 Wis.2d 318, 324, 243 N.W.2d 410 (1976). It is also a fundamental rule of statutory construction that any result that is absurd or unreasonable must be avoided. E.g., Jungbluth, 201 Wis.2d at 327, 548 N.W.2d 519 (citing Green Bay Redev. Auth. v. Bee Frank, Inc., 120 Wis.2d 402, 409, 355 N.W.2d 240 (1984)).

If the meaning of a statute is clear from its language, we are prohibited from looking beyond such language to ascertain its meaning. Stockbridge School Dist., 202 Wis.2d at 220, 550 N.W.2d 96 (quoting Jungbluth, 201 Wis.2d at 327, 548 N.W.2d 519). However, if a statute does not clearly set forth the legislative intent, we must look at the history, scope, context, subject matter, and object of the statute. Id.; In re Interest of Kyle S.-G., 194 Wis.2d at 371, 533 N.W.2d 794.

We therefore turn to the language of Wis. Stat. § 236.13(1)(c), to determine whether it clearly sets forth the intent of the legislature. Section 236.13(1)(c) provides in pertinent part: "Approval of the preliminary or final plat shall be conditioned upon compliance with ... [a]ny local master plan which is consistent with any ... official map adopted under s. 62.23." The parties dispute the meaning of "consistent" in § 236.13(1)(c). Lake City contends that any portion of a master plan that deals with issues not covered by an official map is inconsistent with the official map. Under this interpretation, a city plan commission may deny plat approval based upon an element contained in a master plan only if such element is similarly contained in an official map.

Mequon claims that Lake City's proposed interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 236.13(1)(c) renders the words "master plan" superfluous. Mequon further contends that "[i]f the legislature had intended that only issues addressed in an official map could form the basis of a denial of a plat, then it need have only referenced the 'official map' in Section 236.13(1)(c), Stats." (Petitioner's brief at 9.) Accordingly,...