DCPREZ-2014-10839 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

recent deed of record transferring the property to you was accomplished under a single legal description covering the outer boundary of a single 31.3 acre ownership parcel. This is the same description included in the 1990 deed immediately following Ms. Olson's request for, and approval of,the RH-4 zoning to allow the use of the property as a single building site. The historic 1.4 acre parcel simply no longer exists as a separate, substandard/nonconforming parcel of record. > I appreciate the objectives you have in your proposal to reestablish the historic parcel as a second building site on the property. However, it is the responsibility of county staff and local elected officials to review such proposals in an objective manner and to apply adopted land use policies and regulations based on information found in the public record. I hope you understand that this is precisely what county staff has done, even if the content of the public record and findings of our review do not align with or support your proposal. > If you'd still like to meet, I am available early afternoon on Monday the 18th or Wednesday the 20th. As always, I am also happy to discuss by phone. >Sincerely, > Majid > From:Jean Mitchell [mailto:mitche985 @aol.com] >Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 9:38 AM >To: Allan, Majid; Lane, Roger; Everson, Daniel; Kodl, Curt >Cc: Dayna Dreis; peter.weil @wisc.edu; ICE Mike Mitchell >Subject: Re: County staff report for Mitchell petition (#10839) >Thank you Majid for all of your time and research on our rezoning request, it is truly appreciated! The Town Board postponed any decision last week. > From our viewpoint the transfer document made in 1969 states the Grantor conveys any and all rights. The issue appears to be with the person who typed that document only 'calling-out' one of the original rights that were inherent to the 1959 conveyance. The 1969 transfer document also erroneously references Erna as a 'single man' in the Grantor line but states 'she'as the Grantor conveys any and all rights in the now 'infamous' paragraph. Our position is the 1969 Cliff-noted version of the 1959 language simply fails to clearly reflect the original conveyance, it remains our position the "any and all" statement covers the building site transfer. >Subsequent human documentation errors caused this parcel's legally transferred 1959 building site to disappear. With no one reviewing/verifying the origin and content of this parcel during the creation the 1981 "map" it reflected inaccurate information on which Bonnie's 1990 request was based. To us it's simply about trying to right the 1969 building site disappearance issue and allow us, the Town and the County to at least have the option to leverage it's original intended purpose as a taxable building site. >We appreciate your thoughts on whether or not a nursing home structure would have been approved. Unfortunately, we have no factual information or expertise to add any valuable response (to your thoughts). From our perspective the 1969 'any and all rights' encompass the construction of a dwelling, if a nursing home project was for some reason disallowed, it stands to reason a residential project would have met little if any resistance at any point. If any of the following "would have" occurred we would likely have the two building parcels available to us today: >>the author of the 1969 transfer document would have left it at convey »all rights and interest the author of the 1969 transfer document »would have verbatim copied the language from 1959 the information 2