DCPREZ-0000-03829 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DeWITT, PORTER, HUGGETT, SCHUMACHER & MORGAN, S.C. Dane County Agriculture, Environment and Lands Record Committee April 7, 1987 Page 3 5 . Mr. Petty is required, under the terms of a land contract entered into sixteen years ago, prior to adoption of the County and Town land use plans, to purchase for develop- ment a minimum of five acres in 1987 . If he does not do so, he forfeits his rights under the contract. The contract is presently in the estate of Robert Furseth. Denial of Mr. Petty' s rezoning request will not only injure Mr. Petty, but also the heirs of the land contract vendor. The contract was entered into by both parties with the reasonable expectation that the lands would be suitable for rural home development and not for farming use. 6. The total acreage of the lands involved, including the residual parcel which will be left after the two lots are created, is approximately 25. 99 acres. Of this, only eight acres are farmable land; the balance is woodland (13 acres) and wetland identified by the DNR (3+ acres) . The farmable acreage is too small and isolated to permit custom farming or generate any substantial income for the owner. Obviously the parcel, even in its entirety, does not qualify the owner for farmland preservation credits. 7 . Although there are still some lands in the area in A-1 zoning, lands to the east and west, both in the City of Stoughton and in the Town of Dunkirk are already in use or in the process of development for single family homes. 8 . Since the parcel is not suitable for farming and is nonconforming in size, construction of a private residence would require rezoning in any event. The parcel ' s proximity to single family residences makes commercial rezoning in- appropriate. Therefore, it is obvious that the parcel ' s appropriate use is single family residences, and a restric- tion prohibiting such use might well be deemed unreasonable and unconstitutional by the Wisconsin courts. For example, in State ex rel. Nagawicki Is. Corp. vs. Delafield, 117 Wis. 2d 23 (Ct. App. 1983) , an attempt by the City of Delafield to apply its A-1 zoning classification so as to preclude construction of a private home on a two-acre island which did not meet the minimum lot area was held to be unreasonable and unconstitutional restriction of the prop- erty. The court said: "When the power to regulate by zoning is exercised in such a manner and to such an extent that the