## Facts

- The City of Elkhorn adopted Zoning Ordinance No. 426 (1972), dividing the municipality into districts and regulating land uses.
- At the intersection of East Geneva and South Lincoln Streets, three corners were zoned B-3 (commercial-shopping) with commercial uses; the southeast corner was zoned R-4 (multi-family residential) and contained two residences.
- Hardees sought to rezone the two R-4 parcels on the southeast corner to B-3 to allow a fast-food restaurant use.
- The City’s common council approved the rezoning amendment.
- Nearby property owners sued for declaratory relief, alleging (1) the zoning ordinance was invalid because the City lacked a formal comprehensive plan under Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7), (2) the rezoning was illegal spot zoning, and (3) the B-3 district provisions were unconstitutional for granting unbounded legislative discretion.
- The circuit court upheld the ordinance and rezoning; the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a formal, separate comprehensive plan is a condition precedent to a valid zoning ordinance under Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7).
2. Whether rezoning the Hardees parcels from R-4 to B-3 constituted illegal spot zoning.
3. Whether the B-3 commercial-shopping district provisions were unconstitutional for failure to limit municipal legislative discretion (delegation/vagueness).

## Decision

- The court held that Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7) does not require a freestanding comprehensive plan document as a prerequisite to valid zoning.
- The court concluded the rezoning was not illegal spot zoning because it aligned the subject parcels with an existing commercial pattern at the intersection and furthered legitimate zoning purposes.
- The court upheld the B-3 district provisions as sufficiently definite and guided by adequate standards, rejecting unconstitutional delegation and vagueness claims.
- The circuit court judgment was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- The statutory requirement that zoning be “in accordance with a comprehensive plan” is satisfied when the zoning ordinance reflects a coherent, systematic scheme of community development; a separate master plan document is not mandatory.
- Spot zoning is not unlawful per se; the inquiry focuses on whether the amendment is inconsistent with the overall zoning scheme and statutory purposes, or instead is arbitrary and primarily for private benefit without relation to public welfare.
- Zoning enactments are presumed valid, and challengers bear a heavy burden to show the ordinance is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable with no substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
- Zoning district provisions satisfy due process and nondelegation limits when they provide sufficient purposes, standards, and use classifications to guide municipal decision-making and constrain discretion.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court sustained Elkhorn’s zoning framework and the Hardees rezoning, holding that a zoning ordinance may itself satisfy the comprehensive-plan requirement, that the amendment was not illegal spot zoning given existing commercial zoning at the intersection, and that the B-3 district rules provided adequate standards to avoid unconstitutional delegation or vagueness.


Bell v. City of Elkhorn, 364 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. 1985)