|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
DCPREZ-0000-06460
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
1 Rezones
>
DCPREZ-0000-06460
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2015 3:51:55 PM
Creation date
12/10/2015 3:51:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Rezone/CUP
Rezone/CUP - Type
Rezone
Petition Number
06460
Town
Cross Plains Township
Section Numbers
16
AccelaLink
DCPREZ-0000-06460
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
Harold Krantz Page 2 February 5, 1996 <br /> density policy is 1 per 35 acres in agricultural preservation areas, there is no need to further <br /> address division of parcels that are already less than 35 acres. If you propose to divide them, <br /> then we need policy and implementation provisions. <br /> At one of the meetings you attended, a statement was made that there were between 15 and 20 of <br /> these non-farm parcels in the Town. We need to reach some agreement on a definition since I <br /> have reviewed the number of "substandard parcels" in the Town and estimate approximately 75 <br /> such parcels in consultation with the Zoning staff. <br /> Your letter raises another policy issue. Do you intend to consider the redivision of parcels <br /> created since the plan was adopted? One of the basic reasons for the density policy is to set a <br /> limit on how much development actually takes place in agricultural areas. Once a parcel of less <br /> than 35 acres is approved for rezoning and division the policy is that further divisions are not <br /> allowed. If there is an intent to have more intensive development of an area, the plan map can be <br /> amended, with some analysis of the impact of those developed lots on the area. <br /> As an example, under your interpretation any parcel of less than 35 acres that has already been <br /> approved since 1981 could be argued to be a non-farm parcel and thus allowed to further <br /> develop. According to our Regional Trends reports, a total of 153 lots has been created since <br /> your plan was adopted in 1981. <br /> While not every one of these could be divided due to physical imitations, by allowing these to be <br /> considered for further division it could open up significant development and raise the issue of <br /> fairness. If a farmer with 140 acres is limited to 4 lots, is it fair that one of the lots he has sold <br /> can be further divided into additional lots? <br /> As previously noted, your interpretation raises as many questions as it answers, and points to the <br /> need for more clarification and probably a plan amendment. <br /> I will be happy to meet with you and your Board if you wish. <br /> Sincerely, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.