FULLER, 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• > >From a perspective of practicality, I am of the opinion that certified > survey maps are not utilized to create public highway right-of-way > easements. Why not simply provide for this transaction by recording a > single legal document (CSM) without further cluttering the public record? > Most Towns prefer the right-of-way dedication, and I suspect that the Town > of Rutland Land Division Regulations probably requires a > dedication, rather > than an easement. > In order to accurately respond to the 12,289 square feet parcel question, > that you have discussed with Steve Reynolds, I will need either a > tax parcel > number, or a legal description. I have been burned on numerous occasions > when attempting to provide specific interpretations based solely upon > property address. Thank you. > Norb S. > Original Message > From: Dale Beske[mailto:dale.beske@doit.wisc.edu) > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 6:01 PM > To: scribner@co.dane.wi.us > Cc: Dgeo4177@aol. com > Subject: Two Issues for Rutland > Hi Norb: > We have two issues where we need your assistance. > 1. Charlie North submitted a final CSM to us in January. This > parcel is at > the corner of US 14 and Old Stage Road. It had the Old Stage > Road frontage > labeled as 'dedicated to the public'. Our attorney had advised > us long ago > to not accept that language (except on newly created roads) but instead to > have it recorded as an easement, mainly for the sake of conformity, I > believe. So we approved his CSM at our February meetings, as long as he > changed that language to 'easement'. Your letter back to Mr. North (dated > about Feb 11, 2002, but I do not have it in front of me) requires that Mr. > North use the language 'dedicated to the public'. I would like to discuss > this with you Why is this language being required? Any reason > we can not > or should not go with the easement language instead? > 2. We have a badly deteriorating, apparently abandoned building > located at > 975 Hwy 14. We have received complaints about it and would like to see it > fixed up, occupied and maintained, or, failing that, would like to see it > torn down. We would like to know the status of the lot and > building before > we approach the property owner to discuss the issue. The lot is shown on > the FlyDane CD as being more or less rectangular, with dimensions of 53.96 > ft x 228.67 ft x 46.85 ft x 247.39 ft, and an area of 12,289 sq > ft. The lot > does not have 66 ft of frontage on the road. The lot is zoned A-1 > Exclusive, as nothing new has happened there (zoning -wise) since the Town > adopted A-1 Exclusive zoning and a land use plan in the late 1970's. The > building has been on the lot, unchanged, for a long time, > pre-1970's anyway. > The building probably does not comply with the front or side yard > requirements, although we have not gone on the property to measure. It > appears to need a lot of repairs, such as a new roof and new > windows and who