January 26, 2015 at 4:33 p.m.
Judge allows Woodboro Bible camp lawsuit to proceed
Judge allows Woodboro Bible camp lawsuit to proceed
On Friday, Oneida County Circuit Judge Michael Bloom held camp organizers should be allowed to seek review of Oneida County's decision to block construction of the camp, though Bloom also dismissed the town of Woodboro as a defendant and threw out 15 of 16 claims alleged in the lawsuit.
The sole remaining issue in the case entails a process called certiorari review - limited judicial review of the county Board of Adjustment's decision denying the plaintiffs a conditional use permit to build the camp.
The plaintiffs - brothers Art, Wesley and Randall Jaros - have been trying to open the year-round camp on family property along Squash Lake since 2004.
In 2010, the Oneida County Board of Adjustment upheld the county's decision not to issue a conditional use permit for the camp. Officials said under the plans presented, the camp did not comport with generally applicable zoning rules, which include a general prohibition on year-round, recreational camps. Lake property owners also raised concerns the camp would have been disruptive, though the Jaroses have disputed that claim.
That same year, the brothers filed suit in federal court in Madison, claiming the town and the county violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Wisconsin Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The Jaroses had sought certiorari review as part of the federal case, but U.S. District Judge William Conley declined to address that issue. He further ruled in favor of the county and town.
The Jaroses then appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.
A three-judge panel on the appeals court upheld Conley's decision, concluding that the county and town did not violate federal law. The panel found that even though year-round camps were not allowed on the Squash Lake property, the Jaroses could still construct a church or school, or build in other zoning districts in the county that allow year-round recreational camps. The court also found that the county has an overriding interest in preserving the secluded nature of the land around Squash Lake.
Shortly after the appeals panel issued its ruling, the Jaroses filed the state court action seeking certiorari review. The case was put on hold pending the outcome of the federal litigation, and was reactivated when the Supreme Court this past spring declined to take up the federal suit.
The Jaroses later amended the complaint in state court to add 15 other counts similar in nature to the federal case, and added the town of Woodboro as a defendant. The town subsequently argued the entire case should be thrown out.
In his decision, Bloom held that because the federal court dismissed the certiorari review element of the first lawsuit without prejudice, the Jaroses have a right to request that review in state court.
"There is no real dispute that the plaintiffs have a right to bring a state law certiorari action in this case," Bloom wrote in a 14-page opinion filed Friday after a hearing in the case.
Indeed, Oneida County acknowledged that the Jaroses could pursue the certiorari review claim in state court, though the county had challenged some portions of their complaint.
Certiorari cases are fundamentally different from civil lawsuits because the scope of review is narrower, Bloom said. He described the federal case as essentially consisting of two different actions: "one raising multiple civil issues, and the other a state law certiorari claim."
Bloom also dismissed the town of Woodboro as a defendant - as certiorari review applies only to the county's decision to deny the conditional use permit - as well as the 15 counts the Jaroses had later added. Bloom found that those arguments could have been raised in the federal case, and that the federal court would have likely exercised supplemental jurisdiction over them.
"The record in this matter makes it abundantly clear that the plaintiffs litigated the federal case quite extensively, even petitioning the United States Supreme Court for review," Bloom wrote. "It is hard to imagine that during the entire course of the federal litigation that the plaintiffs were somehow denied ample procedural process to develop all of the issues appropriately."
Also on Friday, Bloom denied motions the defendants had filed seeking sanctions against the plaintiffs' attorneys. The town and county had asserted that the brothers and their lawyers were pursuing frivolous claims and that the federal court case had already resolved the issues presented in state court.
Bloom disagreed, writing that just because the plaintiffs were not successful in pursuing the additional 15 counts does not mean their effort was frivolous. He said he was not aware of any Wisconsin appellate court rulings precisely on the issues raised in the case.
"By all appearances, the plaintiffs are acting on a sincere desire to pursue their religious calling - on their own land - in the face of what is, from their perspective, restrictive government regulation," Bloom wrote. "It is beyond dispute that counties and towns have the lawful authority to engage in land use regulation. However, I believe that it would be unjust to penalize the plaintiffs for pursuing every available legal avenue in furtherance of their perceived rights."
Art Jaros, who is an attorney, said he would review Bloom's written ruling and decide whether to ask for reconsideration of the decision to dismiss the additional counts, or if he and his brothers would just proceed with certiorari review. Jaros said dismissal of the town from the case was of no consequence; he said state law required that the town be named as a defendant because its interests could be affected.
"The bottom line is the case is alive and well," Jaros said outside the courtroom shortly after Bloom issued his decision.
Oneida County Corporation Counsel Brian Desmond declined comment about the ruling.
A hearing is scheduled for February.
Jonathan Anderson may be reached at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.