DCPCUP-0000-01466 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COMPOSITE REPORT- Application No. CUP 1466 Public Hearing 11/29/97 Town of Oregon C. According to the Dane County Zoning Ordinance, the proposed use is a Conditional Use in the Al-EX district[10.123(3)(d)]. A rezone to a different district—a Land Use Plan Amendment -- is not required. The proposal complies with the standards applicable to conditional uses in the A-1EX district: A. The statement of purposes of the zoning ordinance and the A-1 District. B. The potential for conflict with agricultural use. C. The need of the proposed use for a location in agricultural area. D. The availability of alternative locations. E. Compatibility with existing or permitted use on adjacent lands (see E., F., G.). F. The productivity of the lands involved. G. The location of the proposed use so as to reduce to a minimum the amount of productive agricultural land converted. H. The need for public services created by the proposed use. (see H.) I. The availability of adequate public services and the ability of affected local units of government to provide them without an unreasonable burden. (see I.) J. The effect of the proposed use on water or air pollution, soil erosion and rare or irreplaceable natural resources. (see J.) D. The proposal is consistent with the Town Plan. The property falls in the Agricultural Preservation Area and in the Resource Protection Category. The part that falls in the Resource Protection Category is kept intact: the proposal is to preserve and not disturb it. The proposal complies with the requirements in the Resource Protection Category listed in F.1, F.2 and F.3. In terms of compliance with the Agriculture Preservation Area of the property, the requirements for rezoning to a different district (A-3, A-14 and A-15) are not applicable. The proposal follows all the pertinent requirements of uses in the Agricultural Preservation Area stated of the Town in A-1 A-2, A-4, A-5 A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13, and A-16. The density allowed in this property is one dwelling unit. E. The proposed use — quite nature retreats— is not disruptive and is compatible with a residential use. The activities proposed do not increase the noise level. The size of the building (similar to a new residence), private location, quite activities, and sporadic use makes its use similar to the presence of a family but concentrated on certain days and times. The owner of the residence most affected by the proposal -- surrounded on three sides by the property in question -- wrote a letter of support of the previous petition (CUP 1224) on February 6, 1995 stating: "I prefer a use which will maintain the wooded nature of the land - which this use will - and which allows me to have some input into how that land is used - which this does. "