DCPVAR-1983-01141 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

County of' Dane -:•.4 ,-W .y. OFFICE OF THE` CORPORATION COUNSEL c0P. City County Building, Madison, Wisconsin 53709 GLENN L. HENRY Corporation Counsel 266.4159 April 28, 1983 William Voges, Chairman Dane County Board of Adjustment City -County Building Madison, WI 53709 RE: Appeal No. 1141 (Drover's Woods Home Owners' Association) Dear Mr. Voges: Your Board has requested this office to provide an opinion on the above -referenced appeal. The appeal challenges the zoning administrator's interpretation of a provision of the zoning ordinance relating to nonconforming status of gravel quarries in Dane County, and the quarry located adjacent to the Drover's 'Woods Subdivision in particular. The appellants challenge the accuracy of the administrator's interpretation of sec. 10.21(1), D. C. Ords. Thev also allege that even if the interpretation is correct, then the section itself is unlawful as violative of state law. The authority of the Board of Adjustment to hear appeals is found in sec. 59.99, Stats. Subsection (1) authorizes County Boards to allow their Boards of Adjustment to issue special exceptions to the zoning ordinance. Dane County has not done so, therefore this section is inapplicable. Subsection (4) authorizes every Board of Adjustment, without further action by the County Board, to hear appeals from persons aggrieved by decisions made by administrators. Subsection (7) restates the Board of Adjustment's authority under sub. (1) and (4) as well as adding other powers not pertinent here. The formal appeal document, dated March 1, 1983 and signed by Richard R. Malmgren, refers only to an. appeal from an interpretation of the zoning administrator and thus is properly within the scope of the Board of Adjustment's authority - under sec. 59.99(4), Stats. Appellant's March 28, 1983 letter in support of its appeal impliedly raises the additional argument that if the Zoning Administrator's interpretation is correct, then sec. 10.21(1), D. C. Ords., is invalid as contrary to state law. Appellant's argument here is that an interpretation which allows a nonconforming use to continue after apparent abandonment for more than one year violates sec. 59.97(10), Stats.