CCR1977022e
RESOLIJTI.ON i.22-77 (As Alnended)
APPROVAL OF I.FGAI. JDr S:r.4'i'US
(\Jill?rd Rndsison)
THEWFOX, YE IT RESOLVED thzt the Coiru~lon Council of the
City of 1.I-skego 602s hereby appmveupon the recornnendation
of the City ??hn COT-TI~SS~~~, t rc-quest of IJillard
Andel-son for lc-sal siztus for L.ots 3 2nd 4, ?.;uskcgo Shores
Subdivision.
>-
RESOTJJTION $22-77 (As Amended)
APPROVAL OF LEGAL LOT ST.4TUS
(1Jillard'Anderson)
UHERELS, the Common Covncil of the Cj~Cy of Kusltego has
been petitioned by Willard kndersan dEtcmi.nati.on
of the status for Lots 3 and 4, Xuskcgo SI-(ores Sub-
division,~ and
M;EREAS;~-the Plan Comnission has recommended denial
of the rzquest,
THEFSFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thzt the Common Council of the
City of Euskego does hereby approveupon the recomiendation
of the City ?lan Cormission, t.,; request of ldillard
Anderson For legal stetus for Lots 3 and 4, Nuskego Shores
Subdivision. *
>
6 ATTEST :
To: The Honorab
hiarch 18, 1977
,le Aldermen of the City of hluskego
Re' Veto of Resolution $22-77, As Amended
Gentlemen'
On blarch 8, 1977, your honorable body adopted Resolution
$22-77, As Amended. That resolution granted legal lot status to
Lots 3 and 4, Block 13, IAuskego Shores Subdivision, owned by blr.
Willard Anderson. Although I seldom disagree with the actions
of your body--to the degree that I feel a v'eto is necessary, in
this particular instance hecause of the many ramifications of your
action I have chosen to use the veto as a method of re-opening the
matter. for further discussion. -
You will reca.11~ that th-e lots in question are both. owned by
Mr. Anderson and that he.owns a home: on--Lot 4:~ You will further
recall that he has asked-for legal- lot status in order that Lot 3
can be sold. As is usually the case when I disagree with you
I have spent a great deal of time reviewing this matter in an 0 attempt to find some way to justify your action. The fact that
Xr. Anderson has been a longtime resident of the city, pleads
economic hardship and is a longtime acquaintance of mine I have
been especially diligent in my review. Ifo\vever, I have not been
able to find justification for your action. .>
Over the past several years the City of bluskego has developed
a philosophy that whenever possible they will discourage the pro-
liferation of high density development. As a result of that
philosopi~y very few substandard lots have been given legal lot
status and in those cases \\here it was granted it was as a result
of redivisions. A review of the hluskego Shores Subdivision indicates
that there are a large number of double lots which could, although
substandard, be built upon. A drive through the subdivision clearly
sho\':s where these douhle lots are and how it would affect the
giving legal l.ot status to Air. Anderson, has created the possibility
nejghboring area It is my personal opinion that !:our body, by
of ~nany requests for legal lot status. Although you may argue that
each case represents a different situati~on and should be looked at
individually you wjill be hard pressed to deny any request for legal
lot status in the future since each person feels he has a unique
situation. The lots in question are perhaps the \,;orst exatiiple of
development in an area already too dense. By approving Resolution
-22-77, As Amended, you have not only declared legal a lot that is
substandard in width but you have created a second legal lot \'.ilIch
is substantially lacking in area as \\ell as width
\:'hen determining ~hether or not substandard lots should be
made legal it is the responsibility of the Council to look at nany
things, on of khich is not the economic advantage or disadvantzge
to the o\<ner You must consider how that action \~,.oul~d a€fect
adjacent property O:YII~I-S, the density of the area, the goals of tne
city as they rel~ate to dc-nsi.ty and \i-i>ether or not ):our action co113d
be used 2s a precedent for future requests by other citizens
as a convnunity committed to medium and low density development as
well as one that has been able to overcome the poor planning xhich
had taken place many years ago.
The City of hluskego over the ):ears has de\reloped a reputation
ing my veto.
I urge that you reaffirm the philosophy of the city by sustain-
Sincerely yours,
JJG/je
Jerome J. Gottiried, hlayor
City of IJuskego
March 9, 1977
I, June E. Elger, Deputy City Clerk of the
City of Muskego, do hereby certify that on March 9,
1977, the Mayor of the City of Muskego, submitted
to this,officer,his intention to veto Resolution
#22-77, entiiied, Denial of Legal Status (Lots 3
and 4, Muskego Shores Subdivision - W. Anderson),
which was adopted by the Common Council on March 8,
1977.
,I wc-7
\
RESOLUTION 822-77
DENIAL OF LEGAL LOT STATUS
(Willard Anderson)
determination
division, and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE
the recommendation
t of Willard
nd 4, Muskego Shores
Subdivision.
DATED THIS
4
0 March 18, 1977
To' The Honorable Aldermen of the City of Muskego
Re. Veto of Resolution #22-77, As Amended
Gentlemen:
On March 8, 1977, your honorable body adopted Resolution
Lots 3 and 4, Block 13, Muskego Shores Subdivision, owned by Mr. #22-77, As Amended. That resolution granted legal lot status to
Willard Anderson. Although I seldom disagree with the actions
of your body to the degree that I feel a veto is necessary, in
this particular instance because of the many ramifications of your
action I have chosen to use the veto as a method-of re-opening the
matter for further discussion.
Mr. Anderson and that he owns a home on Lot 4. You will further
recall that he has asked for legal lot status in order that Lot 3
can be sold. As is usually the case when I disagree with you
I have spent a great deal of time reviewing this matter in an
Mr. Anderson has been a longtime resident of the city, pleads
attempt to find some way to justify your action. The fact that
economic hardship and is a longtime acquaintance of mine I have
been especially diligent in my review. However, I have not been
able to find justification for your action. .I
You will recall that the lots in question are both owned by
e
a philosophy that whenever possible they will discourage the pro-
liferation of high density development. As a result of that
philosophy very few substandard lots have been given legal lot
status and in those cases where it was granted it was as a result
of redivisions. A review of the biuskego Shores Subdivision indicates
that there are a large number of double lots which could, although
substandard, be built upon. A drive through the subdivision clearly
shows where these double lots are and how it would affect the
neighboring area. It is my personal opinion that your body, by
giving legal lot status to Mr. Anderson, has created the possibility-
of many requests for legal lot status. Although you may argue that
each case represents a different situation and should be looked at
individually you will be hard pressed to deny any request for legal
lot status in the future since each person feels he has a unique
situation. The lots in question are perhaps the worst example of
#22-77, As Amended, you have not only declared legal a lot that is
development in an area already too dense. By approving Resolution
substandard in width but you have created a second legal lot which
is substantially lacking in area as well as width.
Over the past several years the City of Muskego has developed
what can happen when you encourage continuation of high density
made legal it is the responsibility of the Council to look at many
\\'hen determining whether or not substandard lots should be
things, on of which is not the economic advantage or disadvantage
to the omer You must consider how that action \r:ould affect
adjacent property o~vners, the density of the area, the goals of the
city as they relate to density and \\~hether or not your action could
be used as a precedent for future requests by other citizens.
The City of Muskego over the years has developed a reputation
we11 as one that has been able to overcome the poor planning which
as a community committed to medium and low density development as
had taken place many years ago.
I urge that vou reaffirm the DhilOSoDhv of the citv bv sustain- * ing my veto: " "
Sincerely yours,
Jerome J. Gottfried, ?lagor
City of hluskego
JJG/ je