DCPREZ-0000-07389 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

011oisrstramisaisismisa 4 • 4 • • Burull Memo to Dane County Zoning and Natural Resources 2 • Committee, re response to Dahlen objections. 3. Copy of Dahlen's Vacant land Offer to Purchase between Dahlen's and Burull's, dated March 12, 1998 for a parcel described as "approximately 4-acres"(Lot 2). Offer's contingencies, i.e., from the Dahlen's to the Burull's, include the following (Line 30 -34) language -- "This offer is subject to the adjoining parcel (Lot 1 , which included both RH-1 and the AZ designation) not allowing building in the present cleared area. This(sic) will be a zoning restriction on that parcel." 4. Pleasant Springs Planning Commission Meeting, 4/8/92, para # 1 : "Hwy B motion ... to approve CSM as presented. Carried." 5. The property closing took place on April 27, 1998. The Warranty Deed for Lot 2 included the statement "Together with and subject to a joint driveway agreement." The closing took place one day after the deed restriction was signed --meeting the Dahlen's demand. Per the section map attached to my original document to you on November 24, you can see Dahlen's Lot 2 adjacent to the Burull property. The cleared land referred to by Dahlen, in the Offer, is the strip of land adjacent(Lot 1 ) to his western boundary. In other words, contrary to their assertions in their written and oral objections, the Dahlen's bought their property fully aware that the only place they could build their residence was in the woods, that they were essentially only buying woods, and in fact wanted to build in the woods. The deed restriction is not part of their property at all. They knew when they purchased the lot that the logical value-strategic place for them to build was in the wooded high ground near their eastern boundary where the view is unsurpassed. The Dahlen's, with all information and disclosures in hand, made an offer on Lot#2 . Indeed, the Dahlen's stipulated that a deed restriction of the adjoining property must be in place before they would close. The above record and facts negate their grounds for their objections. In other past Town zoning issues regarding land use, neither of the Dahlen's have voiced objections about land use, or other zonings. Consequently, I urge the Dane County Zoning and Natural Resources Committee to accept Dahlen's objection letter for what it is--a document indisputedly at odds with the record, and in which he admits to (2nd page, 3rd para) "a hyperitical attempt to prevent others from doing the same", i.e., to prevent anyone else from moving into the area, even though six years earlier the Dahlen's readily bought their own lot knowing it was directly adjacent to another building site (Lot 1 ). Attachments: Town Minutes, Offer to Purchase, and map.