DCPREZ-0000-04116 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAW OFFICES STAFFORD, ROSENBAUM, RIESER g HANSEN WILLIAM ROSENBAUM TENNEY PLAZA,SUITE 1000 WILLIAM T.RIESER DANIEL W. UGHES R JOHN A.HANSEN 3 SOUTH PINCKNEY STREET EDWIN J.HUGHES RICHARD A.HOLLERN MAILING ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 1784 JANICE N.BENSKY JOHN KOEPPL DEBORAH MORITZ JAFFE BRIAN E.BUTLER MADISON,WISCONSIN 53701-1784 PETER E.HINTZ ROBERT HOROWITZ JEFFREY A.KACZMARSKI ELI H.SCHMUKLER (608)256-0226 LYNN J. BODI RICHARD K.NORDENG KEVIN G FITZGERALD DAPHNE WEBB TE LECOP[ER(608)256-0798 THOMAS G.WILSON KRISTINE A.EUCLIDE - PETER T.JULKA CHARLES R.IRISH GREGORY E.SCALLON OF COUNSEL GARY M.YOUNG - BRUCE D.HUIBREGTSE WILLARD S.STAFFORD TED WASKOWSKI 1916-1983 THOMBARBARA November 16 , 1987 Mr. Ron Larson, Chairman Town of Dunn Plan Commission 4156 CTH B McFarland, Wisconsin 53558 Re: Hanzel Rezoning Dear Mr. Larson: The town has requested my opinion on Pamela Hanzel ' s request to rezone Lot 7, Block 3, Oregon Heights to R3-A. The rezoning would permit the lot's use as a duplex. In particular, I have been asked to comment on the issues raised in Mr. Lathrop ' s letter of November 3 , 1987. For the reasons discussed below, in my opinion the town may legally approve the rezoning as proposed, notwithstanding the February 1987 amendments to the land use plan, if the town considers the rezoning to be con- sistent with the overall goals and policies of the land use plan generally. It is also my opinion that the town may legally disapprove the rezoning if it determines the rezoning would ad- versely affect the health, safety, morals or general welfare interests of the town, including those interests as reflected in the goals and policies of the land use plan. In short, the town' s decision to approve or disapprove is a legislative decision-- an exercise of discretion that must be based on the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the town, using the land use plan as a guide. Mr. Lathrop' s letter suggests that to disapprove the re- zoning would be an unconstitutional "taking" of property without due process or unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws. In my opinion this is very unlikely, provided the disapproval were based on a legitimate concern related to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the town. One such concern might be the ability of the lot' s septic system to service a duplex as opposed to a single family residence. There may be other, more general, concerns addressed by the land use plan.