DCPCUP-0000-01369 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

=ROM : JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PHONE NO. : 6088737521 Nov. 02 1998 12:22PM P2 • 1750 Skidmore Road Stonghton,WI 53589 Tim 608/873 6777 • Off 608/2(6-7 185 • October 29, 1998 Helen Johnson 908 Kriedeman Dr. Stoughton WI 53589 Dear M s. Johnson: Thank you for getting me a copy of the Corporate Counsel opinion on the original rezone#6714 of the Milwaukee Repel ter parcel. While the basic tenet of that opinion is no surprise, it does seem to based on some misinformation, which may be important to the final resolution. Since you and the Zoning Committee may be involved in that resolution,I thought I would relay some additional history. Most importantly, the "c nix" of the original agreement and deed restriction was not "abandonment" of the o d easement but rather the development of a supplemental easement. I was informed by the Zo: ing Office(Norb Scribner)at the outset of all this that requiring a supplemental access wa; clearly within the legal parameters of a rezone condition. The language offering to cease vehicu.ar traffic over the old easement was offered by and written by the attorney for Milwaukee Repeater for considerations given them by me and by the Town. It was viewed by most participants as a voluntary agreement, codified by the deed restriction. In fact, the deed restriction says nothing about"abandonment"and Milwaukee Repeater clearly intended to leave the old easemer t on the books as an alternative approach. The Corporate Counsel opinion does not seem to take direct issue with the requirement to develop a supplemental access. This may ultimately be the appropriate resolution to this issue. A slightly more detailed account of the etiology of this agreement may be useful. When Milwaukee Repeater asked for a rezone and CUP for a new tower,I objected on the grounds that a new tower designed tc increase their business would also increase traffic through my yard. I suggested that the old e�ISement was never designed or intended for the traffic frequency that I was seeing (even before the new tower) and that a new easement would be better for my property,Milwaukee Rt peater and the Town. After examining the easement,the Town seemed to agree_ The Town Board suggested abandonment as a rezone condition_ (Contrary to some characterizations, and tile implied assumption of the Corporate Counsel opinion,I never requested any restrictions to the old easement,though clearly I had no objections to such.) When the Town forwar led its initial recommendations to the County Zoning Committee,the Committee said (presumably with legal consult) that abandonment would not be appropriate and