DCPREZ-0000-06916 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1,1 • Dane County Planning & Development I '1 RRoom 116, City-County Building, Madison, Wisconsin 53709 Land Division Review y14��F j5,e' 608/266-9086 Property Listing 608/266-4120 TO: Kris Euclide,Assistant to the County Executive Surveyor 608/266-4252 FROM: Mark Roffers, Senior Planner Zoning 608/266-4266 DATE: June 24, 1998 SUBJECT: Past TDR Transactions in Dane County You asked for some additional information regarding how a TDR transaction was allowed in the Town of Deerfield in the past, in relation to the current Noll rezoning request(6916). The past TDR transaction was approved in April 1996,through Rezoning Petition 6557. It was preceded by a somewhat similar deal in the Town of Rutland a few months earlier(Petition 6396, Handleland). However, Petition 6396 was approved based on an agreement between adjoining property owners as to who would get the splits on a former 120 acre farm that was later divided. Those types of deals have been made in the past when"original"farms are divided after the date of A-1 Exclusive zoning adoption. Petition 6557 was similar to an earlier petition(6392)proposed by Walt Olson. Petition 6392 was approved by the County Board,but vetoed by then-County Executive Phelps. The veto was consistent with the Executive's policy not to approve rezonings which violated town density policies. The maximum number of residential lots on the "original" (1978) farm parcel had been reached with the approval of Petition 5997 in 1994. Petition 6557, for a slightly different piece of land than 6392, was approved provided that a "transfer of splits"be executed through a deed restriction on another piece of Mr. Olson's land elsewhere in Deerfield. That deed restriction was recorded, requiring that no residential development occur on two tax parcels. I was able to identify one as being 20+ acres owned by Mr. Olson, currently land locked and mostly in DNR mapped wetland. The other parcel number in the deed restriction contained typos, and I was not able to identify a similar parcel number in Mr. Olson's ownership. At best, the recorded deed restriction is very sloppy and will be difficult to interpret in the future; at worst, it will be completely ineffective. The approval of Petition 6557 was widely supported by elected officials. At the time, there was a committee in place called the"Common Ground Committee." That Committee was charged with finding areas of agreement on land use issues among elected officials with different philosophies. One of their main focuses was developing a"transfer of splits"program similar to what transpired in the Olson case. In fact, I think the Olson case was viewed as something of a pilot for a broader transfer of splits program. The Committee stopped meeting in Summer 1996, and the transfer of splits program/rules/policies were never put in place. Attached is some additional information which you may find helpful.