DCPREZ-0000-07222 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

years. It has been fallow in CRP. The only active farm land that is being changed by the golf course is in Green Co. It is not possible to say on the one hand that there are "prime farm soils" and on the other that those same soils are unsuitable for adequate maintenance of non eroding turf. Iflthe conditions are prime for crops they are prime for turf, both with appropriate mana ement. You will note that the fairways proposed for the first nine make use of those portions of the Dane Co. site which are most easily used, by soil type and by grade. T e soils and substrate conditions at this site do not differ substantially from those foun on portions of the Edelweiss course. That site also faced challenges regarding lope and soil. It has met those challenges successfully with turf grasses. There are no slopes on the proposed Argue-ment course which exceed those of holes #1, #9, #10, and #18 at that course. The fairway locations for the second nine are Subject to very careful review. Side slope on a fairway is much harder to deal with, both in terms of playability and in terms of erosion mitigation than slope along the cen ral axis of a fairway. As indicated in the original application narrative, we may have t place some of the additional holes on properties in Green Co. not in the original a plication, or modify substantially the location of greens and tees. Erosion is expensive. It robs a golf course of its beauty and playability. A family run operation cannot afford to not et it right the first time. That's where our junior partner landscape architect fits in. Second, to the Primrose issu s. In appearing before you, I am aware that you have been notified of unanimous approvals by Green Co. and by the Montrose Township board, with their recomm ndations and restrictions. You are also aware of the disapproval by Primrose. While am aware that it is, and justifiably so, rare for your committee to override the decision of a local township, I believe that there are substantive reasons to do so, in this instance, as the Primrose decision was split at both planning board and town board levels. Of necessity, some of my comments will be redundant to those above. ( 1. The property we seek to rzone for use for golf course fairway, tee and green areas is bounded to the north and west by parcels which Primrose Township and Montrose Township previously per fitted to be established as rural residential parcels by land division from the same Wi rwill farm property as are the parcels we seek to have rezoned for recreational us , without residential construction. Neither the Ritschard family nor the LindstroM family conduct agricultural activities on their properties, 60 and 50 acres respectively. Neither objects to the golf course project, having so stated both to Mr. Jennric and to officials from Primrose. There is a matter of equitable treatment under law at take here. 2. The properties in Primr se township were deemed unsuitable for rental ground for crops due to insufficient yields at least ten years ago. They were placed into the CRP at that time by the Re, . Mr. Wierwill. When the property was placed on the market a number of years ago, No local farmer stepped forward to offer to purchase