DCPREZ-0000-07222 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This is a supplementary narrative to the information provided in the narrative of the May 1998 response to staff comment. I assumed, that since that material was hand delivered by myself both to staff and to the ZNR committee at that time and that it was requested to be included as part of the permanent record of the proceedings regarding our petition #7222 that both members of the staff and of the committee are cognizant of and familiar with it. Needless to say, I was somewhat taken aback to discover that the committee was working with less than what I had provided fully one year ago, and that the questions that had been addressed in my response of May 1998 were still being asked as though the information I had provided both to the committee and to staff was unknown to both. To reiterate what was previously provided: 1. The Dane County properties in question were identified in the original application as Primrose Township Sec 36-5-7 Se 1/4 Ex W 20 Acres 19.900 Acres Parcel #24-0507-364-950103 and Montrose Township, Sec 31-5-8 FR SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Exc prt LYG SE of Argue Rd. 25.5 Acres. 2. The parcels in question have been in CRP through October 1998, as part of the former Rev. Linus Wierwill property. All other portions of the Wierwill property, in Dane Co, have been utilized for large lot, residential development, with the full complicity of the townships and county, and in contradistinction to the promulgated land use plans of the townships. 3. The parcels in question are not contiguous with any active farm other than that of the owner, Arthur and Carolyn Jennrich. The Green Co. portion of this property is already converted to use as a golf course, per conditional use permit under Green County's understanding of a golf course as a permissible use within agricultural zoning. 4. The Dane Co. parcels are neither of sufficient size or fertility to warrant rental for crop land at a rate per acre which makes economic sense. In addition, the absence of facilities for animals suggests fence line to fence line cultivation of drilled grain or row crops, thereby increasing the likelihood of moderate to severe loss of topsoils to erosion. 5. The parcels are not in immediate proximity to facilities to allow for use in animal husbandry and the presence of residences in the immediate neighborhood precludes development of animal husbandry facilities of a size which would be economically viable. Confinement facilities are impossible due to proximity to slope and the inability to locate sufficient lands within economically realistic distances to dispose of manure. 6. The parcels are economically viable as housing sites. Indeed the full property in both Dane and Green Counties are prime for residential development in the current climate of population growth and shift from the Madison area to the Green