Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> DANE COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT <br /> SUPPLEMENTARY STAFF REPORT <br /> Petition 7376: Ervin Lee Public Hearing Date: 10/27/98 <br /> Town of Vermont Date of this report: 11/3/98 <br /> I. Compliance with Town Density Policy <br /> The Town of Vermont Land Use Plan (dated 4/4/97 and adopted by Dane County on 8/21/98) <br /> contains the following policy concerning nonfarm residential development: <br /> "Residential development shall be limited to `one potential development right'per 35 acres, <br /> based on land ownership as of Jan. 1, 1985. " <br /> Based on Zoning Division and Register of Deeds records, on January 1, 1985 the portion of the <br /> property that is the subject of this petition was part of an 85 acre farm owned by Raymond& <br /> Bernice Lee. Raymond and Bernice are Ervin Lee's parents. At that time, Ervin and Sharon Lee <br /> owned 120 acres of land to the northwest of Raymond and Bernice's property (See Map 1 and <br /> copy of 1985 Dane County Plat Book, attached). According to the Lees, these two legal parcels <br /> have been fanned as if they were a single property since 1981. <br /> The two legal parcels were combined in 1987,when Ervin and Sharon purchased the 85-acre <br /> parcel (see Map 2). If we look at each parcel separately,the 85-acre parcel would have yielded a <br /> total of two splits under the Town's density policy. Since 1985, this 85-acre parcel has been <br /> divided twice (including Petition 7316, currently pending), leaving no splits available. The 120 <br /> acre parcel in 1985 would have yielded a total of three splits. Since 1985, this parcel has been <br /> divided once, leaving two splits remaining. The Town Plan is silent as to whether contiguous <br /> land owned by parent and child in 1985 should be counted as common or separate ownership for <br /> purposes of calculating maximum density. The Town of Vermont chair has indicated that for <br /> these purposes, the town has traditionally treated such parcels as 4f they were in single <br /> ownership. <br /> II. CONCLUSIONS <br /> A literal interpretation of the language in the town plan would suggest that once Petition 7316 is <br /> finalized,no available splits will remain on the 85-acre parcel that is the subject of this petition. <br /> However,the applicant claims, and the Town Board apparently concurs,that adjacent property <br /> owned by members of the same family in 1985, if farmed as a single unit, should count as <br /> commonly owned property under the Town's density policy. Under this definition,the <br /> combined acreage of the two properties would allow for an original total of five divisions, with <br /> two such splits currently remaining. Using these assumptions, if Petition 7376 is approved, there <br /> would be two remaining splits left on the combined Lee farm. <br /> In fairness to future applicants, if this is an adopted policy of the Town of Vermont, appropriate <br /> language to this effect should be included in the Town Plan. An alternative would be for the <br /> town to amend its land use plan to include comprehensive guidelines for the transfer of <br /> development rights from one parcel within the township to another. The Department of Planning <br /> and Development would be happy to assist the town in developing an appropriate transfer of <br /> development rights program. <br />