Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> fog <br /> ROY B. HOVEL <br /> ATTORNEY AT LAW <br /> 235 E.MAIN ST. -P.O. Box 43 <br /> SUN PRAIRIE,WIS. 53590 <br /> November 6, 1987 <br /> Mr. William Fleck <br /> Zoning Administrator <br /> Rm. 116, City-County Building <br /> Madison, WI 53709 <br /> Dear Mr. Fleck: <br /> As you requested following our telephone conference we had <br /> on this date, I enclose herewith a copy of the letter dated <br /> October 7, 1987 sent by Norbert Schribner, Authorized <br /> Representative of the Dane County Agricultural, Envirnment and <br /> Land Records Committee with the address of Room 116, City-County <br /> Building, Madison, WI 53709, which specifically indicates "Zoning <br /> Petition #4059 has been approved by the Dane County Board of <br /> Supervisors. " Although there are several other specified <br /> conditions mentioned as requirements for the proposed Certified <br /> Survey Map, there was no mention in that letter of a requirement <br /> for a "deed restriction" which would prohibit outside storage. <br /> Obviously the county zoning classification of C-1 , would cover <br /> that matter. <br /> For your information I also enclose a copy of a letter I sent <br /> to Attorney Gary Hebl after he sent me the request for my client, <br /> after having completed the purchase of the land, to impose a deed <br /> restriction thereon. <br /> Giving further thought to what transpired in our joint <br /> telephone conference on this matter on this date, among the things <br /> which Mrs. Jensen, the Clerk for the Town of Burke, indicated was <br /> the fact that the town wanted the deed restriction for the purpose <br /> of having the prohibition against outside storage remain after <br /> the rezoning is effected in case of the sale of the lands by Mr. <br /> Kesselhon in the future. She was not concerned about Mr. <br /> Kesselhon' s use of the premises for his antique business, and Mr. <br /> Kesselhon has no objection to the zoning restriction of that <br /> nature. <br /> Therefore, although I have not discussed this matter with <br /> my client as yet, if he should be willing to sign a "deed <br /> restriction" if properly worded, I am asking if there would be <br /> any objection on the part of the county as well as the Town of <br /> Burke if two amendments were made to the deed restriction, as <br /> follows: <br /> 1 ) That instead of the words contained in paragraph number <br /> 1 two, that the paragraph be restated to read as follows: <br /> I NOV09 981 <br /> RECEIVED <br /> MING OIV. <br />