Laserfiche WebLink
opinion on this issue in Bankers Trust Company v. Zoning Board of <br /> Appeals, 345 A. 2d 544 (Ct . 1974) . There, the property in <br /> question was divided by a forty foot right-of-way which served as <br /> a road for other property owners as principal means of access . <br /> The court considered a definition of "lot" which was practically <br /> identical to the definition in the Dane County Ordinance . The <br /> court concluded that "a parcel so separated cannot reasonably be <br /> considered a single lot under a generally accepted definition of <br /> lot and under the circumstances of this case . " Id. , at 549 . The <br /> Vermont Supreme Court adopted the Bankers Trust rationale and <br /> held "that a right-of-way which, because of location and <br /> function, effectively separates the parcels that it physically <br /> connects, so that they cannot be used in the ordinary manner as a <br /> single ' lot' , may render those parcels separate for purposes of" <br /> zoning ordinances . Wilcox v. Village of Manchester, 616 A. 2d <br /> 1137, 1139 (Vt . 1992) The court in Wilcox did indicate that "the <br /> existence of a right-of-way contiguous to and separating two <br /> parcels in common ownership will not automatically render those <br /> parcels separate lots . " The court noted that a right-of-way <br /> could be a well-travelled road or simply lines on a plan that <br /> pose few practical barriers to use as a single parcel . Whether a <br /> particular right-of-way effectively separates a parcel is a <br /> question of fact . Id. , at 1140 . See also, Sanfilippo v. Board <br /> of Review of Town of Middleton, 188 A. 2d 464 (R. I . 1963) . <br /> There is no binding Wisconsin authority on this issue . It <br /> is my opinion that two commonly owned parcels, separated by a <br /> public road that effectively divides the parcels, do not <br /> constitute a single zoning lot . <br /> Since e;y, <br /> David R. Gault <br /> Assistant Corporation Counsel <br />