1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page two Board of Adjustment March 10, 1972 Industrial Commission. The proposed use has been placed in Chapter 48.60 of the statutes by the State as an institution and licensed as such. The City of Madison has seen fit to classify these as institutions allowed only in R-5 and R-6 zoning with conditional use. We are not criticizing the County but propose that we look to the County Ordinance and amend it as necessary to protect the citizens of the County and that they be given the opportunity to be heard. Browndale has no real Mother-Father, but we contend the image was the basis of the single family interpretation when the ordinance was formulated. Browndale is licensed as Envolvement Centers, Inc., children from out-of-state are also assigned to Browndale and under the legal settlement Provision could cost Dane County thousands of dollars, we have no right to saddle our people with this. Browndale's proposed use is a commercial use of the highest degree. The care of children at $37.50 each per day equals a considerable amount. This is no longer a single family dwelling it is an institutional motel. Mr. Al Brei, Deerfield, building house near proposed Browndale site. Was area legally zoned for this use? Chm. Erickson not relevant to question before us. Mr. Brei Cannot see how someone can come into an area and not be subject to some regulation, it is not fair to the neighbors who have to abode by the rules. A single family in one household is not a single family if they are not blood relatives. Wilmar Larson resident Cottage Grove area had a call from a neighbor to a child-care home who had expressed they had many problems. Chm. Erickson not relevant to question. Floyd J. Davidson value community for the type that it is; as a representative of the people of the town of Cottage Grove we ask that if an error has been made in zoning that it be corrected and the law be followed. OPPOSED: Attorney Richard Glesner representing Browndale. We beg to differ with the question asked by the appeal. Our feeling is that the question to be asked is whether or not the use proposed by Browndale is regulated by the Dane County Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Glesner presented his "brief'; Use for either a foster home or child welfare institution is not regulated. (see "brief" pages 4-6) The ordinance may not be extended by implication to regulate a specific use. (See page 6 of brief) The proposed use is a function vital to the State of Wis. Courts have decided that this type use is so important they should not be regulated. (See page 6-7 of brief) A zoning ordinance may not be used to thwart a policy of the state. There is no sound reasoning to require R-4 zoning for this use as R-4 does not regulate this use. Also, where site approval is required, the ordinance is very specific on the uses it covers. Browndale's use is not covered by the ordinance. Therefore, it is not regulated by the ordinance. Simply because it is not mentioned does not mean the ordinance may be extended to cover it. The ordinance may have to be changed to regulate this use but this regulation may not be made retroactive, it must pertain only to future use. City Zoning has no application to County ordinance, and is irrelevant to the question. Question Erickson; what is your interpretation of single family dwelling? Glesner as I stated we feel the question is not of single family but if our proposed use is regulate:- by the ordinance. Erickson; how many children do you plan for in each home? Glesner 5, as provided in your ordinance. Erickson Mr. Enger, was your inter- pretation based on 5 per dwelling? L. J. Enger, Zoning Supervisor, the interpretation was based on foster homes. Glesner Sir, (Chm. Ericks ) your decision must be based on how the ordinance regulates this use. Erickson Would you put a name to your use? Glesner We basically call this a foster home. Erickson Do you plan tv have more than 5