Laserfiche WebLink
BRIEF OF RELATORS -PLAINTIFFS <br />On page 2 of their brief, Relators -Plaintiffs state <br />Defendants have admitted that Finding No. 2 of the Board of <br />Adjustment is incorrect. That statement is false. Relators - <br />Plaintiffs choose to treat Defendants' response to Paragraph 7 <br />of the Complaint as being the equivalent of admitting the <br />falsehood of Finding No. 2 of the Board of Adjustment. The <br />court has only to compare Paragraph 7 of the Complaint with <br />Finding No. 2 of the Board of Adjustment to see that they are <br />not the same. Paragraph 7 of the Complaint alleges that <br />Madison Sand and Gravel was told by the Zoning Administrator <br />that the site in question could be re -opened without complying <br />with current Dane County Zoning Ordinances. Finding No. 2 of <br />the Board of Adjustment says nothing about compliance with <br />current Dane County Zoning Ordinances. <br />Relators -Plaintiffs make other misstatements in their <br />brief. At page 3, Relators -Plaintiffs state that Finding No. <br />6 of the Board of Adjustment includes a finding that "... the <br />site existed as a site which could be operated at the time the <br />plat was recorded ..." and that this is "... an incorrect <br />legal conclusion." It is more than an incorrect legal <br />conclusion, it is a phantom. Finding No. 6 says nothing <br />whatsoever about whether the site could be operated, merely <br />that it did in fact exist as a mineral extraction site at the <br />time the plat was recorded. The Board of Adjustment did not <br />make the finding that it could have been operated as a mineral <br />extraction site at the time the plat was recorded. <br />-3- <br />