DCPREZ-0000-04116 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Coe STAFFORD, ROSENBAUM, RIESER & HANSEN Mr. Ron Larson November 16, 1987 Page 3 detail. Bell v. City of Elkhorn, 122 Wis . 2d 558, 564 , 364 N.W. 2d 144 (1985) . The Bell court also reiterated that zoning decisions should be consistent with long-range planning and based upon considerations that affect the whole community. Id at 568 . Thus, communities should not engage in "spot" zoning (zoning a single area inconsistent with its surroundings) except when it is in the public interest and not solely for the owner' s benefit. Id. In my opinion, Ms. Hanzel ' s lot could be left with its current rezoning or rezoned R3-A, and either way there would be no illegal "spot" zoning. The plan as amended in February 1987 provides in part: "Rezoning to R-3A for duplexes may be permitted in areas other- wise suitable for residential use on the condition that the density of dwelling units per acre does not exceed the maximum permissible density that the town would approve for new R-1 zoning. " The problem with Ms . Hanzel ' s request is that it would rezone a 1. 6 acre parcel from R-1 to R-3A (from one dwelling unit to two) , while the town would permit new zoning to R-1 in an unsewered area only if the density were no greater than one dwelling unit per acre. Several facts suggest that the town may be able to grant this rezoning without harming the general goals and policies in the plan. First, the developer for this area originally intended that this lot be used for a duplex, as evidenced by the recorded restrictions for Oregon Heights. Second, apparently, the lot was once zoned for a duplex, but then was rezoned single family residential . Third, the lot is surrounded by duplexes on two sides. Fourth, the owner has volunteered to restrict the property so that no more than seven persons may live on the premises while it remains a duplex. Under these facts, the town may decide that it could permit the rezoning without harming the plan' s general goals and policies relating to growth and development, including the goal to "minimize population density. " The town should be aware that I have not researched the validity of the proposed restriction under section 236 . 293, Stats . , on the number of inhabitants in the duplex. The re- striction is more likely to prove valid if based on a health concern, such as the adequacy of the septic system. Assuming