## Facts

- Michael Anderson owned a lakeside parcel on Lake Mildred in the Town of Newbold with about 358.43 feet of shoreline frontage.
- Anderson applied to divide the parcel into two waterfront lots, with roughly 195 feet of shoreline frontage on one lot and 163.43 feet on the other.
- The Town had adopted an ordinance governing “on-water” land divisions that set a minimum shoreland frontage requirement for newly created lots; the Town treated the ordinance as a subdivision regulation adopted under Wis. Stat. § 236.45.
- The Town Plan Commission determined that Anderson’s proposed division did not satisfy the Town’s minimum frontage requirement and recommended denial.
- The Town Board denied the land-division request.
- Anderson sought circuit-court review by common-law certiorari, arguing the Town exceeded its statutory authority because the ordinance was, in substance, a shoreland zoning ordinance. He contended that shoreland zoning authority in unincorporated areas is assigned primarily to counties under Wis. Stat. § 59.692 (and related provisions), not to towns.
- Anderson also argued that, even if framed as a subdivision regulation, the Town could not use subdivision authority to impose a restriction it would lack authority to impose through shoreland zoning.
- The circuit court upheld the Town’s denial, and Anderson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Town’s minimum shoreland frontage requirement, though labeled a subdivision regulation, is actually a shoreland zoning ordinance that the Town lacked authority to enact.
2. Whether statutory limits on a town’s shoreland zoning authority bar the Town from adopting and enforcing the frontage requirement through its subdivision authority under Wis. Stat. § 236.45.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment upholding the Town’s decision.
- The court concluded the frontage requirement was a valid exercise of the Town’s subdivision authority under Wis. Stat. § 236.45, rather than an unauthorized shoreland zoning ordinance.
- The court rejected the argument that a town’s lack of independent shoreland zoning authority necessarily restricts its ability to regulate lot creation in shoreland areas through subdivision controls.
- Because the ordinance was within the Town’s authority and Anderson’s proposed lots did not meet the minimum frontage requirement, the Town proceeded on a correct theory of law when it denied the request.

## Legal Principles

- Wis. Stat. § 236.45 authorizes municipalities (including towns exercising village powers) to enact subdivision ordinances governing how land may be divided and laid out, including dimensional requirements for newly created lots.
- County shoreland zoning authority under Wis. Stat. § 59.692 addresses zoning regulation in shoreland areas; it does not automatically preempt all local regulation affecting shorelands.
- A regulation aimed at the creation and configuration of lots at the time of division can qualify as a subdivision control, even if it resembles a restriction that might also appear in a zoning code.
- Courts seek to read related statutes together when possible and will not infer that one statute silently cuts back another grant of authority absent clear legislative direction.
- On common-law certiorari review, a court examines whether the municipality stayed within its jurisdiction, applied the correct theory of law, acted reasonably (not arbitrarily or oppressively), and relied on evidence that reasonably supports its decision.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals held that the Town of Newbold’s minimum shoreland frontage requirement was enforceable as a subdivision regulation under Wis. Stat. § 236.45 and was not invalid merely because towns lack the same authority as counties to enact shoreland zoning under Wis. Stat. § 59.692; therefore, the Town lawfully denied Anderson’s proposed lakeshore land division for failing to meet the frontage standard.


State of Wisconsin ex rel. Anderson v. Town of Newbold, 935 N.W.2d 856 (2019)