Laserfiche WebLink
"The owner of a parcel, or contiguous parcels totaling more than thirty-five acres may create <br /> that number of lots determined in the following manner. The total number of contiguous acres <br /> will be divided by thirty-five. If the resulting quotient is a whole number, the owner may create <br /> that number of lots. If the quotient is a whole number plus a fraction, the owner may create that <br /> number of lots equal to the whole number plus one additional lot if the remaining fraction equals <br /> or exceeds 18/35. " <br /> For the Seston property, the acreage in common ownership as of 12/12/81 totaled 75.3 acres, <br /> allowing a maximum of 2 splits. At the time the Zoning Division completed their density study <br /> for the 6/23/98 public hearing, only one split (CSM 8813) had been recorded by the Register of <br /> Deeds. On 6/22/98, CSM 8954 was recorded, which created a second split of 11.5 acres on the <br /> Seston property. There is currently a residence on the 2.3 acre CSM 8813 lot, while the 11.5 acre <br /> lot created by CSM 8954 remains undeveloped. <br /> Although the town plan is silent on the subject, the Town Chair and the Chair of the Town Land <br /> Use Committee assert that Berry has never counted the separation of an existing farm house <br /> toward the number of splits permitted under the density policy described above (see letter from <br /> Melvin Bankes and Barbara Ripp-Statz dated 7/6/98, attached). In the absence of a formally <br /> adopted policy, Town officials and county staff were unable to identify a previous rezoning <br /> petition in the Town of Berry approved by the county board that would establish a precedent. It <br /> is possible that this is the first time this issue has come up in a rezoning context. The Town Land <br /> Use Committee Chair has informed staff that several other properties may be in a similar <br /> situation to the Seston's, and similar requests may be expected in the near future. <br /> The Town is currently considering amendments to its Land Use Plan to clarify this and other <br /> issues, but is still in the very early planning stages. Formal adoption of an amended plan is likely <br /> several months away. <br /> The 1981 Dane County Farmland Preservation Plan, which sets the guidelines for town plans, is <br /> also silent on the subject of separation of existing farmsteads from the balance of the farm. <br /> Although staff were unable to identify another town plan that explicitly adopts a policy similar to <br /> that of the Town of Berry, there would seem to be nothing about such a policy that would be <br /> inherently inconsistent with any of the county's adopted plans. <br /> B. Public, Local Government, And Agency Input <br /> The Town Planning Commission and the Town Board both unanimously recommended approval <br /> with no conditions. <br /> At the time of this report, no other local, county or state agencies had commented on this <br /> proposal. <br /> III. CONCLUSIONS <br /> A. Summary of main issues/findings <br /> Whether or not the proposal meets the requirements of the town land use plan depends on the <br /> interpretation of land divided to separate existing farm residences from the balance of the farm. <br />