Note: THIS is the statute the city should use as their basis for managing Beach Road.
(3) Lake and stream shore plats.
(a) All subdivisions abutting on a navigable lake or stream shall provide public access at least 60 feet wide providing access to the low watermark so that there will be public access, which is connected to existing public roads, at not more than one-half mile intervals as measured along the lake or stream shore except where greater intervals and wider access is agreed upon by the department of natural resources and the department, and excluding shore areas where public parks or open-space streets or roads on either side of a stream are provided.
(b) No public access established under this chapter may be vacated except by circuit court action as provided in s. 236.43.
Wisconsin State Statute 66.0425
General Municipal Law + Regulation + Privileges in Streets
Note: This is the statute the city used for the following wrongs:
1) The city NEVER should have allowed obstructions - period. Not on public access.
2) The encroaching party never applied for a privilege, the city manager GAVE it.
3) Compensation sounds like a given: SHALL BE PAID! Never has a dime been charged.
4) Third parties, THE PUBLIC, whose rights are interfered with by the granting of a Privilege have a right of action against the HOLDER. Has the privilege been translated to the new owner? From our understanding, yes.
4) Third parties, THE PUBLIC, whose rights are interfered with by the granting of a Privilege have a right of action against the HOLDER. Has the privilege been translated to the new owner? From our understanding, yes.
(1) In this section, "privilege" means the authority to place an obstruction or excavation beyond a lot line, or within a highway in a town, village, or city, other than by general ordinance affecting the whole public.
(2) A person may apply to a town or village board or the common council of a city for a privilege. A privilege may be granted if the applicant assumes primary liability for damages to person or property by reason of the granting of the privilege, is obligated to remove an obstruction or excavation upon 10 days' notice by the state or the municipality and waives the right to contest in any manner the validity of this section or the amount of compensation charged. The grantor of the privilege may require the applicant to file a bond that does not exceed $10,000; that runs to the town, village, or city and to 3rd parties that may be injured; and that secures the performance of the conditions specified in this subsection. If there is no established lot line and the application is accompanied by a blue print, the town or village board or the common council of the city may impose any conditions on the privilege that it considers advisable.
(3) Compensation for a privilege shall be paid into the general fund and shall be fixed by the governing body of a city, village or town or by the designee of the governing body.
(4) The holder of a privilege is not entitled to damages for removal of an obstruction or excavation, and if the holder does not remove the obstruction or excavation upon due notice, it shall be removed at the holder's expense.
(5) Third parties whose rights are interfered with by the granting of a privilege have a right of action against the holder of the privilege only.
(6) Subsections (1) to (5) do not apply to telecommunications carriers, as defined in s. 196.01 (8m), telecommunications utilities, as defined in s. 196.01 (10), alternative telecommunications utilities, as defined in s. 196.01 (1d), public service corporations, or cooperatives organized under ch. 185 to render or furnish gas, light, heat, or power, or to cooperatives organized underch. 185 or 193 to render or furnish telecommunications service, but the carriers, utilities, corporations and associations shall secure a permit from the proper official for temporary obstructions or excavations in a highway and are liable for all injuries to person or property caused by the obstructions or excavations.
(7) This section does not apply to an obstruction or excavation that is in place for less than 90 days, and for which a permit has been granted by the proper official.
(8) This section applies to an obstruction or excavation by a city, village or town in any street, alley, or public place belonging to any other municipality.
(9) Any person who violates this section may be fined not less than $25 nor more than $500 or imprisoned for not less than 10 days nor more than 6 months or both.
(10) A privilege may be granted only as provided in this section.
(note: prior to this agreement, there NEVER was an agreement, for 34 years! See History tab for more info.)
THE ACTUAL PRIVILEGE AGREEMENT: drafted by the city attorney under direction from the city manager and presented to the Planning Commission for their approval. Said approval was under the impression that it was necessary only so Mr. Ring could sell his home, during the time the city was looking to sell him the 30' strip. City Council approved the Agreement on that basis December 19, 2011.
Theoretically it is translated to the new owner of 203 Park Road by virtue of wording, "their successors & assigns." "SOLELY" was a word wrestled over, that the driveway is private, but we were able to clarify that it is not at the 08/06/12 council meeting. FENCING is not addressed by this agreement, nor by a separate agreement for a shed. However, the city seems to claim that fencing is covered by the following agreement.
Wisconsin State Statute 66.1003 - Discontinuance of a public way.
Note: This is the statute the city used for the following wrongs:
1) Beach Road is NOT an alley or back street - it is public access!
It is not to be GIVEN AWAY! Thankfully Council motion failed to approve this.
2) The so-called petition was circulated by city manager Greg Buckley himself, very inappropriate - and only to the two adjacent owners. NOT the other half mile of
residents abutting it as indicated below! Even the city attorney missed this.
3) The hearing notices did not go out to the other half mile of residents abutting.
4) The OBJECTION we filed was accurate according to this statute.
61 signatures and only one was needed! The council didn't even need to vote.
5) Circuit Court is THE only option, we challenged them to take it there but they didn't want to.
(1) In this section, "public way" means all or any part of a road, street, slip, pier, lane or paved alley.
(2) The common council of any city, except a 1st class city, or a village or town board may discontinue all or part of a public way upon the written petition of the owners of all the frontage of the lots and lands abutting upon the public way sought to be discontinued, and of the owners of more than one-third of the frontage of the lots and lands abutting on that portion of the remainder of the public way which lies within 2,650 feet of the ends of the portion to be discontinued, or lies within so much of that 2,650 feet as is within the corporate limits of the city, village or town. The beginning and ending of an alley shall be considered to be within the block in which it is located. This subsection does not apply to a highway upon the line between 2 towns that is subject to s. 82.21.
(3) The common council of any city, except a 1st class city, or a village or town board may discontinue all or part of an unpaved alley upon the written petition of the owners of more than 50% of the frontage of the lots and lands abutting upon the portion of the unpaved alley sought to be discontinued. The beginning and ending of an unpaved alley shall be considered to be within the block in which it is located. This subsection does not apply to a highway upon the line between 2 towns that is subject to s. 82.21.
(4) (a) Notwithstanding subs. (2) and (3), proceedings covered by this section may be initiated by the common council or village or town board by the introduction of a resolution declaring that since the public interest requires it, a public way or an unpaved alley is vacated and discontinued. No discontinuance of a public way under this subsection may result in a landlocked parcel of property.
(b) A hearing on the passage of a resolution under par. (a) shall be set by the common council or village or town board on a date which shall not be less than 40 days after the date on which the resolution is introduced. Notice of the hearing shall be given as provided in sub. (8) (b), except that in addition notice of the hearing shall be served on the owners of all of the frontage of the lots and lands abutting upon the public way or unpaved alley sought to be discontinued in a manner provided for the service of summons in circuit court at least 30 days before the hearing. When service cannot be made within the city, village or town, a copy of the notice shall be mailed to the owner's last-known address at least 30 days before the hearing.
(c) Except as provided in this paragraph, no discontinuance of the whole or any part of a public way may be ordered under this subsection if a written objection to the proposed discontinuance is filed with the city, village or town clerk by any of the owners abutting on the public way sought to be discontinued or by the owners of more than one-third of the frontage of the lots and lands abutting on the remainder of the public way which lies within 2,650 feet from the ends of the public way proposed to be discontinued or which lies within that portion of the 2,650 feet that is within the corporate limits of the city, village or town. If a written objection is filed, the discontinuance may be ordered only by the favorable vote of two-thirds of the members of the common council or village or town board voting on the proposed discontinuance. An owner of property abutting on a discontinued public way whose property is damaged by the discontinuance may recover damages as provided in ch. 32. The beginning and ending of an alley shall be considered to be within the block in which it is located.
(d) No discontinuance of an unpaved alley shall be ordered if a written objection to a proposed discontinuance is filed with the city, village or town clerk by the owner of one parcel of land that abuts the portion of the alley to be discontinued and if the alley provides the only access to off-street parking for the parcel of land owned by the objector.
No comments:
Post a Comment