Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> DeWITT, PORTER, HUGGETT, SCHUMACHER & MORGAN, S.C. <br /> Dane County Agriculture, Environment <br /> and Lands Record Committee <br /> April 7, 1987 <br /> Page 4 <br /> property owners are deprived of all practical value <br /> and are left with only the burden of paying taxes <br /> on it, the practical value of that property has <br /> been 'taken' from its owners without due process of <br /> law. It is clear this is what has happened to the <br /> Nagawicki Island owners. " Id. , p. 27. <br /> 9 . In denying Mr. Petty' s previous rezoning petition, <br /> the Dane County Board raised a concern that the City of <br /> Stoughton had not had an opportunity to review the proposal . <br /> Unfortunately the Board did not permit Mr. Petty to address <br /> this concern. If it had, he would have informed the Board <br /> that the City of Stoughton has no extra territorial zoning <br /> ordinance and, therefore, no legal right or interest in <br /> county rezoning. See, for example, State ex rel. Columbia <br /> Corp. v. Pacific Town Board, 92 Wis. 2d 767 (Ct. App. 1979) . <br /> The City of Stoughton' s subdivision ordinance is also <br /> inapplicable. We understand that the City of Stoughton is <br /> presently in the process of amending its subdivision code in <br /> a manner which will further limit its applicability. <br /> 10. Despite the fact that the City of Stoughton does <br /> not have a jurisdiction, Mr. Petty will obtain from the City <br /> planning agency and the City Council an indication that <br /> Stoughton has no objection to the proposed survey and will <br /> also attempt to get from the City an indication of its intent <br /> with respect to the environmental corridor or proposed <br /> sanitary sewer easement which traverses the parcel . It <br /> should be noted, however, that this corridor or proposed <br /> easement is not within or adjacent to the two lots which Mr. <br /> Petty proposes, but lies in the residual lands which would <br /> remain as a single piece in either PH-4 or A-2 zoning. In <br /> fact, the corridor or easement is in a swale and is not <br /> suitable for construction in any event. <br /> We believe that the above grounds are clearly adequate to <br /> support Mr. Petty' s request. We are particularly concerned <br /> that the County has applied arbitrary and capricious proce- <br /> dures and standards to Mr. Petty' s rezoning request, and that <br /> these procedures and standards have resulted in inequitable <br /> treatment of Mr. Petty's request and denial of his constitu- <br /> tional rights. Clearly justice and equity dictate that <br /> similar treatment be accorded landowners in similar cir- <br /> cumstances and that County objections to or denials of <br /> rezoning be based upon facts and legitimate consideration of <br />