|
|
|
|
|
Hazelbaker Report
DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT
Distressingly, applicants for zoning and other permits
from the Dane County Department of Planning and Development
sometimes find that advice and information provided to them by one
member of the staff of that agency, upon which they relied in good
faith, was wrong. When that happens, the fact that the
applicant was following County staff's directions is no defense.
The most recent incident of which I am aware involved the Town of
Albion's new sanitary sewer system. Several months ago, the
Town's engineers contacted the Planning and Development Department
to obtain information concerning the setbacks for construction of
one of the lift stations for that sewer system. In discussions
with the zoning inspector, they were told that the lift station
needed to be built 30 feet or more from the rear property line of
the parcel in question. Imagine the engineer's surprise, then,
when in presenting the plans for approval and issuance of a zoning
permit, another zoning inspector informed the engineer that the
setback was 35 feet, not 30 feet. The engineer duly noted the
change, and the plans will be revised accordingly. The County
collected its fee for the zoning permit of approximately $1,500 and
the rest will be history.
Now, I do not mean to suggest that County zoning staff acted in bad
faith or are not good people. And, it is also true that county
staff is asked to do too much with too few resources. But, the
County insists on continuing to run zoning for the Towns. If
it expects to keep that responsibility, it has to handle it
properly.
The Albion incident is not the only time in the recent past that
something like this has happened. There is a large accessory
building in the Town of Bristol which was constructed to a height in
excess of the acceptable limits in the applicable zone because the
County issued a zoning permit authorizing it. When the
discrepancy came to light, the County informed the property owner
that even though the County had issued a zoning permit for the
building, the structure was still illegal and would have to be torn
down. The owner is now considering whether to remodel the
building or build a lengthy enclosed walkway to connect the
outbuilding to the house so that it is no longer an accessory
building, but part of the principal residence.
Of course, no agency is any better than the people |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
who run
it, and people make mistakes. The problem is, that when the
County Planning and Development Department makes mistakes like this,
brick, mortar and concrete are poured in reliance, or, as was the
case in Albion, thousands of dollars in engineering fees are
expended in reliance. The nature of the work demands absolute
accuracy.
Fortunately, the error in the Albion situation was caught before the
Town expended hundreds of thousands of dollars to actually build the
lift station. Undoubtedly, had the Town gone ahead and built
the lift station in reliance on the information provided by the
first inspector, they would have been told that it was not the
County's problem. They would have been told that they could
try to solve the problem by going before the Dane County Board of
Adjustment for a variance that they would certainly not have been
granted, and then, face the prospect of tearing down, rebuilding, or
relocating a building. For a cement block building built on a
slab, that would be an interesting feat.
We know that these situations, while regrettable, are not isolated
instances. I would appreciate it if Town officials would
contact me with other examples like this so that we can put together
a case for an ordinance amendment which will require the County to
stand by the advice that it gives to property owners.
JOINT MEETING WITH
ZNR COMMITTEE
ON ROCK COUNTY CASE
YIELDS CONSENSUS TO PURSUE MODEL ORDINANCE FOR TOWNS
The Board of Directors of the Towns Association held a joint meeting
with the County's Zoning and Natural Resources Committee on July 29,
2003 to discuss joint concerns. Chief on the list was the
implications of the recent decision in Rogers vs. Rock County.
In the Rock County case, the Court of Appeals decided
that counties do not have the authority to object to proposed land
divisions on the basis of standards for public improvements adopted
by the County. Although there is a dispute about how
(Continued next page)
Joint Meeting
(Continued)
broad the term public improvements needs to be, the important point
is that it is possible that the County may no longer have the
authority to impose standards related to roads, storm water
drainage, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
