|
STATE
OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
I |
|
|
|
Ogden
Development Group, Inc.
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dolores
M. Buchel, Carl G.A. Grisar, Christine
R. Swannell, Carol Nawrocki, Myron
Stirmel, Kenneth J. Gonnering, Individually and as members of the Board
of Appeals, Village of West
Milwaukee and Donna M. Buse, as
Clerk for Board of Review,
Defendants-Respondents. |
|
|||
ERRATA SHEET
Marilyn L. Graves
Clerk of Court of Appeals
P.O. Box 1688
Madison, WI 53701-1688
Court of Appeals District I
633 W. Wisconsin Ave., #1400
Milwaukee, WI 53203-1918
Court of Appeals District III
740 Third Street
Wausau, WI 54403-5784
Jennifer Krapf
Administrative Assistant
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703
Peg Carlson
Chief Staff Attorney
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703
Court of Appeals District II
2727 N. Grandview Blvd.
Waukesha, WI 53188-1672
Court of Appeals District IV
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703
Hon. Jacqueline D. Schellinger
Milwaukee County Courthouse
901 N. 9th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Jon W. Sanfilippo, Clerk
(L.C. #95-CV-009582)
901 N. 9th Street, Room G-8
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Jonathan B. Levine
Jonathan B. Levine Law Offices
757 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Richard J. Rakita
Rakita Law Firm
735 N. Water St., Ste. 1100
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4105
H. S. Riffle
Arenz, Molter, Macy & Riffle, S.C.
P.O. Box 1348
Waukesha, WI 53187-1348
Eric J. Larson
Arnez, Molter, Macy & Riffle, S.C.
P.O. Box 1348
Waukesha, WI 53187
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached page 6 is to be substituted for page 6 in the above-captioned opinion which was released on December 30, 1997.
Dated this 5th day of January, 1998.
can reasonably infer that by signing the document, Swannell meant to express her agreement with the document’s contents. Thus, the petition was a clear statement by Swannell indicating that she had considered Ogden’s proposal, and had strongly decided that it should be rejected. Given such clear evidence of prejudgment, we must conclude that Ogden’s right to an impartial decision-maker has been violated.
The Board, however, makes two arguments in defense of its decision. First, the Board argues that Swannell’s statements in opposition to Ogden’s previous proposal do not show that Swannell prejudged Ogden’s current proposal because, in its view, the two proposals are “completely different.” The Board specifically claims that the current proposal is “much different” than the earlier proposal because the previous proposal was for a development “50% larger” than the current proposal. We conclude that the small difference in size between the first proposal, for three apartment buildings, and the second proposal, for two buildings, is immaterial. The signers of the petition, including Chairperson Swannell, were opposed to Ogden’s previous proposal not because of its size, but because of Ogden’s plan to construct apartments instead of condominiums. Nearly all of the thirteen reasons given in support of the petition’s position involve an assessment of the unfavorable aspects of apartment buildings in comparison to condominiums. In addition, the petitioners stated that they would “vehemently support” their opposition to the construction of 100% rental units on the land in question. The current Ogden proposal, like the earlier proposal, is for 100% rental apartments. Therefore, Swannell’s opposition to the previous proposal logically relates equally to the current proposal, and thus creates an impermissibly high risk of bias.