A recent appellate court decision has upheld a local government’s move to discontinue a public road, despite objections from property owners who claimed the process was flawed and their rights were not properly considered. The case centers on whether municipal authorities followed state law in ending maintenance for a road serving only one residence, raising questions about public interest and due process in local governance.
On March 17, 2026, George D. Knapp and Kelly M. Knapp filed an appeal with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals against the Town of Drummond after the circuit court for Bayfield County affirmed the town’s decision to discontinue Zawadski Road. The plaintiffs alleged that the town applied an improper legal standard, made an unreasonable determination based on evidence, and failed to comply with statutory notice requirements when deciding to discontinue the road under Wisconsin Statutes chapter 82.
According to court documents, Zawadski Road is a 528-foot-long road in the Town of Drummond that services only one property owned by the Knapps. The town board considered several resolutions between August 2022 and March 2023 to discontinue the road because it was essentially a driveway with no other access or through-route. However, these early attempts were delayed due to missed deadlines, concerns raised by the Knapps at meetings, and questions about proper notice.
On April 18, 2023, another resolution was introduced with a legal description and map of Zawadski Road. Notices about a public hearing were sent via certified mail to relevant parties including state agencies and the Knapps themselves. Public notices were also published in a local newspaper on three occasions ahead of a scheduled hearing on June 13, 2023. Despite these efforts, at the hearing—where James DeBruyn appeared on behalf of the absent Knapps—it was asserted that they had not received notice. The town maintained that notice had been sent but refused by the recipients.
During this public hearing, town officials explained their rationale: maintaining Zawadski Road was no longer in their best interest because it served only one residence and generated less revenue than its maintenance costs required. All board members confirmed personal visits to inspect the road before making their decision.
Following this process, on June 13, 2023, the town passed its resolution discontinuing Zawadski Road and recorded this action with county authorities later that month. On July 12, 2023, George and Kelly Knapp petitioned for certiorari review in circuit court. They argued that discontinuing Zawadski Road—maintained as a public road for nearly a century—was outside the town’s jurisdiction; that improper standards were used; decisions were arbitrary; evidence was lacking; and statutory notice requirements were unmet.
The Town denied all allegations in its answer and submitted records related to its decision-making process. After further hearings where disputes arose over whether meeting minutes should be included in official records for review—a point objected to by the Knapps—the circuit court allowed supplementation of those records based on their relevance.
Ultimately, after oral arguments and additional briefing from both sides—including repeated requests from the Knapps for stays or writs compelling continued maintenance—the circuit court affirmed the Town’s actions. It also denied requests for stays pending appeal or mandamus relief compelling continued maintenance since “a stay would simply stop enforcement of [the] order” rather than reverse what had already occurred.
In reviewing this outcome on appeal (case number 2024AP201), Judges Stark (presiding), Hruz, and Gill noted that appellate review focused strictly on whether municipal procedures under chapter 82 were followed: jurisdictional authority; adherence to law; rationality versus arbitrariness; reasonableness based on evidence—all presumed valid unless clearly contradicted by facts.
The appellate opinion found that while statutory language requires decisions be made “in public interest,” stating such verbatim is unnecessary if rational reasons are documented—as they were here: limited service scope (one residence), lack of broader access utility or connection to other properties/public land, cost-benefit imbalance compared with tax revenue generated by use.
Addressing procedural claims regarding notice delivery methods (certified versus registered mail), judges pointed out that certified mail is permissible under Wisconsin statutes provided certain conditions are met—which they concluded was satisfied in this instance even though notices went uncollected by recipients at their post office.
Other issues raised by appellants included alleged manipulation or incompleteness of official records—a claim rejected after courts determined supplemental materials (such as meeting minutes) were necessary for full review—and failure to consider affidavits presented outside formal record-keeping processes during earlier meetings.
The appeals court ultimately concluded there was no error either in allowing record supplementation or denying extraordinary relief such as stays or writs since discontinuance had already taken effect prior to judicial intervention.
Attorneys’ names are not specified beyond noting George D. Knapp represented himself as a licensed attorney acting pro se alongside Kelly M. Knapp. Judge John P. Anderson presided over proceedings at Bayfield County Circuit Court prior to appeal under case ID 2024AP201.
Source: 2024AP201_Knapp_v_Town_of_Drummond_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
