Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. James A. Van Deurzen <br /> December 11, 1997 <br /> Page 2 <br /> areas in thich the application fails to comply with the Town of <br /> Oregon Land Use Plan. As you know, the Town has invested a lot of <br /> time and resources in the 1994 and 1996 revisions of its Land Use <br /> Plan, and it would be highly inappropriate to ignore that Plan for <br /> this application. <br /> This land is in the Brooklyn Wildlife Area. Most of the area <br /> around it has been designated for resource protection. The land <br /> itself is nearly half wetland. The Town of Oregon Land Use Plan, <br /> page 4, accepts the recommendation of the Dane County Parks and <br /> Open Space Plan to protect such areas through the use of the Dane <br /> County Zoning Ordinance. This is a good opportunity to do so. <br /> Page 18 of the Land Use Plan sets forth the goals of the Land <br /> Use Plan. The application violates a number of these goals : <br /> This is not an area the Town planned for anything other than <br /> agriculture and resource protection, thus violating Goal No. 1 and <br /> Goal No . 4 . The application also violates Goal No. 6 through its <br /> overburdening of the fire and rescue services . This land has a <br /> history of farm development and recent harvesting of timber <br /> products proves this, so that it can hardly be claimed to lack <br /> agricultural production, a violation of Goal #3 . <br /> The application clearly violates the Land Use Plan purposes <br /> described for the agricultural preservation area in which the land <br /> is located. See pages 20-22 of the Plan. This proposal will <br /> create a land use conflict between agricultural and nonagricultural <br /> uses . It will increase rather than reduce costs for providing <br /> services to a nonfarm use . The land contains important natural <br /> features, such as wetlands, steep slopes and significant woodlands <br /> that would be adversely affected by nonfarm development . <br /> The land is not suitable for construction of a driveway <br /> suitable for emergency vehicle travel . While the applicant <br /> originally was able to demonstrate that the land would perk for a <br /> septic system, that was on the basis of a six occupant building, <br /> not a 24 occupant building. As previously noted, the burden on the <br /> Town of Oregon emergency services is clearly unreasonable . <br /> A number of similar concerns are violated that are addressed <br /> in the General Land Use Policies . <br /> I have enclosed copies of the portions of the Town of Oregon <br />