DCPREZ-0000-07121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F •'i ' `k t� - 2199E January 29, 1998 ' Allen M. Raffetto say , & t 9437 County Road Y D•C•? 01�''D"1S10 Sauk City, WI 53583 Mr. James Gregorius, Zoning Administrator Dane County Planning &Development • Room 116 City-County Building Madison, WI 53709 Dear Mr. Gregorius: I attended last Tuesday's public hearing (1/27/98) because of two items on the agenda. One item (zoning petition# 7121) concerns my neighbor's wish to change her property from RH-2 to RH-1 so that her lot can be divided into 2 lots for residential use. My intent was to speak about the petition, but as you know, comments are solicited either "for" or"against" these petitions. So I chose to say nothing. However, I would still like my comments and observations to be made part of petition#7121, inserted into its folder, and made available to the zoning committee. When Margo Zeman brought her zoning request to the Roxbury Town Board, I spoke against it. The Board, in its wisdom, voted 3 to 0 in favor of her request, and ironically the logic for their decision has a direct impact on my own property. The Board noted that the five 5-acre lots (Zeman's lot is #1 and mine is#4) are the best places to put more housing because that would "concentrate development". They fully expect the rest of us to apply for the same change that the Zemans seek, assuming their request is approved by you. So it seems to me that I might be in something of a "win-win" position here. Hence I can't claim that I'm fully against the Zemans zoning request, nor can I tell you that I'm fully in favor of it. Here is how I see the situation. If petition#7121 is approved, then that could mean a "win" for me in a hard/tangible sense: MONEY. I certainly would divide my parcel as the Zemans seek to do if I too had moved off the property and wanted nothing more from it than the best return on my investment. I know the Town Board is fully expecting us to exercise that attitude. They expressed their intention to approve rezoning requests from the four contiguous 5-acre lots that are presently zoned RH-2. When that happens, you will be receiving petitions identical to the one you will have already approved (#7121). And I would argue that the logic for the Zeman rezoning would have to apply to us as well. Perhaps you can come up with a reason why the Zeman property can be rezoned but the other 4 contiguous lots can't. If such reasons exist, I insist on being informed of them so that I have the chance to realign my stance "against" petition #7121.