|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
DCPREZ-0000-05760
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
1 Rezones
>
0000 YR
>
DCPREZ-0000-05760
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/4/2016 11:11:48 AM
Creation date
4/4/2016 11:11:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Rezone/CUP
Rezone/CUP - Type
Rezone
Petition Number
05760
Town
Springdale Township
Section Numbers
7
AccelaLink
DCPREZ-0000-05760
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
' Defendant Phelps failed to veto similar rezoning petitions adopted by the Defendant <br /> Dane County Board of Supervisors at the same time or since his veto of Plaintiffs' petition and as a <br /> result his action herein is unconstitutional and illegal as being both discriminatory and violative of <br /> Plaintiff's equal protection and due process guarantees. <br /> IV. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION <br /> VETO ACTION WAS CAPRICIOUS <br /> 21. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-20 above. <br /> �2. That the Defendant Phelps has failed to state sufficient grounds or any legal basis for <br /> his veto of Plaintiffs' petition and as a result his action herein in doing so constitutes and unfettered <br /> and discretionary political use of said power and as a result is an arbitrary and thus illegal use of <br /> said power. <br /> V. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION <br /> VETO ACTION WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER <br /> 23. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-22 above. <br /> 24. Defendant Phelps is attempting to amend the Town of Springdale land use plan and <br /> the Dane County Zoning Ordinance by vetoing the ordinance adopted by the Defendant Dane <br /> County Board of Supervisors when the property in question had previously been removed a <br /> Farmland Agriculture Preservation District under the adopted Dane County Farmland Preservation <br /> Plan by prior land division; accordingly, said action constituted an abuse of power, was arbitrary <br /> and was based upon an error of law. <br /> 25. The facts above state an actual and serious controversy that has arisen between the <br /> Plaintiffs and the Defendants as to whether the Plaintiff can be denied his rezoning request by a <br /> veto which was clearly inappropriate. <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.