DCPREZ-0000-07168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Schutte, Kristine From: Schutte, Kristine Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 11:19 AM To: Lane, Roger Cc: Everson, Daniel; Widish, Shawn Subject: Phone call regarding use of property in Burke 24 under Pet. 7168 - Null &Void in 2003 Roger and others- Shawn passed an inquiry to me from Tom Hanley(business card in Pet. 7168 file) re: the zoning status of Pet. 7168. Shawn saw notes in the file showing I'd reviewed the status of this file for Greg Thomson in Jan. '09, when Thompson wanted to develop part of the land for commercial purposes. At that time, I confirmed that the Null &Void stamp on Pet. 7168 was correct as of 11/11/1999. Tom will probably contact Roger and possibly Dan on Monday, so I wanted to communicate what he and I discussed today. There was a lawsuit in progress against the County after the determination of the'void' status of Pet. 7168. Hanley brought in a letter dated 05/29/2003 from a Waunakee attorney showing that the litigation ended then, and signed by Norb Scribner, who agreed that the DED period had been extended to July 17, 2003. This letter is not in our Pet. 7168 file. You may choose to ask Corp Counsel about the lawsuit and the letter. I found a series of documents in the file and in Laredo that may or may not meet the four DED Conditions of Pet. 7168. When I talked with Hanley today, I specifically called into question the recording of a Condominium Plat rather than a Subdivision Plat. He agreed this was done to avoid the approval needed from the City of Madison. He also told me he thought recent legislation may have changed the conditions for city ETJ reviews. I told him there were two options open to him, based on the Null &Void status shown in the Pet. 7168 file: First request, in writing, your determination, in writing, of the status of Petition 7168. If you find it to be Null &Void, he can: A)Appeal to the Board of Adjustment. (He seemed to think the action of a former ZA would not be appealed to the Board, but I told him the Null &Void stamp was a procedure under the auspices of the position of ZA, not a specific individual), or B) Make a new rezone application, maybe for just the land he wants rezoned to C-2 for mini-warehousing/warehousing (including some climate-controlled buildings), or maybe for a new subdivision plat for the entire parcel (both with the owner's approval, of course). Hanley mentioned he had approached the WDNR about releasing the easement on Lot 10, to allow it to be developed, too. Finally, please note the Conditions language of Pet. 7168 is very poor. I didn't mention this to Tom, but rezoning would allow the county to correct the following: 1) Insert a date certain instead of an 18-month deadline for any conditions. 2) Divide the first condition into the three separate elements listed: • SW Permit approval by LCD; • Require some kind of documentation regarding the extension of Maly Road through the C-2 property to the north of the property(Rural Masonry land) and change the spelling from "Molly" Road to Maly Road; • Correct the reference to Lot 12 --there is none on the condo plat! 3) For the second condition -- I think this is the one that isn't fulfilled in any documentation --work with whatever the Town of Burke Comprehensive Plan shows for this area now! 4)Change the DR to list action uses prohibited, rather than references to code sections, which can be difficult to verify, as they may change over time. Hope that all makes sense and gives you some background when Hanley contacts you. We can talk more on Wednesday, when I return --Thanks, Kris Kris Schutte Assistant Zoning Administrator Dane County Zoning Division Department of Planning and Development 608.266.9084 schutte@co.dane.wi.us 1