|
Memo to: Committee on Zoning and Natural Resources
<br /> From: Town of Cross Plains Board
<br /> Re: Zoning Petition#6460
<br /> Date: Dec. 12, 1995
<br /> The Town of Cross Plains Board voted, at its meeting of Nov. 13, 1995, to ask your committee to rule
<br /> officially on the policy issue that our town plan as adopted does not apply the 35 acre density rule to
<br /> non-farm or substandard parcels. We ask you to take jurisdiction in this interpretation of our town
<br /> plan policy, under your statutory authority as given in 59.97(2)(bm), Wis. Stats., as follows:
<br /> See 59.97(2)(bm): "The head of the county zoning agency appointed under s. 59.97(10)(b)2.shall have
<br /> the administrative powers and duties specified for the county zoning agency under this section,and the
<br /> county zoning agency shall be only a policy-making body determining the broad
<br /> outlines and principles governing such administrative powers and duties and shall
<br /> be a quasi-judicial body with decision-making power including but not limited to
<br /> conditional use, planned unit development and rezoning."
<br /> RPC typically is asked to give its advisory opinion on whether rezoning petitions conform to town
<br /> plans, but we understand that RPC typically quotes the administrative zoning staff for this.
<br /> Moreover, RPC has no authority to set policy for the administrative zoning staff,nor to serve as a
<br /> quasi-judicial body with decision-making power regarding rezoning, and finally, RPC has no authority
<br /> to determine what the policy is in the town plans. Hence, RPC has no competence in these matters,
<br /> for which its advisory opinions on these matters have no competence and can work injustice.
<br /> The adopted land use plan for the town of Cross Plains makes a general statement of its 35-acre
<br /> density policy on its p. 5, as follows:
<br /> "Lands in the agricultural district should not be rezoned for non-farm residential development at an overall
<br /> density of greater than one dwelling per 35 acres...."
<br /> The Cross Plains town land use plan, however,only implements this policy for "farm units."
<br /> For proof, see the section of the plan titled "Implementation Program,"which starts with the words:
<br /> "To give the plan meaning and clearly state the town's intent for using the plan in making decisions, the
<br /> following actions are anticipated:" [underlining added]
<br /> Under it, see Point 5, in which the first two sentences cover development on "less productive lands":
<br /> "The primary policy for Agricultural Lands is preservation,with limited development allowed on less productive
<br /> lands. This limited non-farm development has a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size,which will be
<br /> implemented through use of the Residential Zoning District.
<br /> All of the remaining sentences of Point 5 then cover only farms and farm development, and only
<br /> for farms does our land use plan implement the 35-acre policy, as follows:
<br /> The 'density of one lot per 35 acres within a farm unit' means that someone who owns 140 acres could create
<br /> up to 4 lots if all other policies are met. The lots may be together in a cluster or at scattered points
<br /> depending "farm unit"will include the land holdings as of the date of[adoption] of this plan[sic]. This
<br /> number of allowable lots will apply until is made to this plan[sic]. It is also recognized that additional
<br /> farm residences are allowed in the A-1 Agricultural(Exclusive)District '...occupied by a person who,or a
<br /> family at least one member of which,earns a substantial part of his or her livelihood from farm operations
<br /> on the farm parcel.' There is also provision for one residence per farm under the conditional use provision
<br /> for parents or children of the farm operator. In reviewing applications for these conditional uses,the town
<br /> will apply Town Land Use Plan policies insofar as reasonable."
<br /> Hence,the Cross Plains land use plan does not implement the 35 acre density policy for non-farm
<br /> units, and hence, does not apply it to unfarmed substandard parcels. This is because the town plan
<br /> sees unfarmed substandard parcels as sites for "potential urbanization" (see page 4, Point 7). This
<br /> view is in conformity with our town plan's definition of Agricultural Lands (p. 11):
<br /> "Agricultural Land: areas identified on the Town Plan as being most appropriate for preservation as long-term
<br /> farm agricultural use based upon soil type,historical use,owner commitment,degree of investment,natural
<br /> features,parcel size,and adjacent land uses."
<br /> By that definition, our town intends to preserve agricultural land only as it is identified as
<br /> agricultural by such factors as soil type,whether it has been farmed, whether its natural features
<br /> permit it to be farmed,whether it is too small to be economically farmed,etc.
<br />
|