|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
DCPREZ-0000-07121
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
1 Rezones
>
DCPREZ-0000-07121
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2015 2:15:44 PM
Creation date
11/19/2015 2:15:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Rezone/CUP
Rezone/CUP - Type
Rezone
Petition Number
07121
Town
Roxbury Township
Section Numbers
19
AccelaLink
DCPREZ-0000-07121
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Given our decided preference for a larger lot, with low density development, <br /> this Town Board request created no major problem for us. But it did create a <br /> distinct expectation that zoning policies intended to keep the area south of <br /> Highway Y free of higher-density development until such time as all the land <br /> and lots north of Highway Y had been developed and sold. <br /> The applicant proposes to sub-divide a 5- acre parcel—less than half the size <br /> of our lot—into lots of approximately 2 acres and 3 acres. <br /> Our question is one of equity: if we are prohibited, by Town Board request, <br /> from subdividing a 12-acre parcel, why is it fair or equitable or reasonable to <br /> allow the subdivision of a smaller, 5-acre parcel? Conversely, if this re- <br /> zoning is approved, why can't we receive a similar re-zoning designation and <br /> be permitted to sub-divide our land if we ever decided to do so? Would we <br /> be held to our current zoning classification? <br /> Equity suggests to us that the Zeman petition should be denied, given the <br /> application of zoning policy when we were re-zoned and in other instances <br /> since then. <br /> 2. Existing town and county zoning policies are disregarded if this petition is <br /> approved. <br /> The Town Board and the Town Planning Commission have in the past and <br /> continue today to designate the area north of Highway Y and around <br /> Roxbury as the preferred residential development areas in the town. During <br /> the hearings on the Zeman petition, frequent reference was made to the fact <br /> this request would represent an exemption from the Town's land use <br /> guidelines. No one disputed the fact that this would amount to an <br /> exemption. <br /> It also would contradict at least five specific objectives as stated in its <br /> adopted land use plan, including the following objectives (page 3 of plan): <br /> #5: Promote an orderly development pattern that will be economical and <br /> efficient to provide with public services; <br /> #6: Protect unique historical, archeological, and environmental area <br /> [Blackhawk Ridge with its 1832 Battle Site and the Native American <br /> mounds are directly behind our property]; <br /> #7: Maintain rural character of town; <br /> #8: Maintain the attractiveness of the landscape as viewed from roads and <br /> highways in the town; and <br /> #11 : Protect wildlife habitat areas. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.