DCPREZ-0000-06460 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[1, \\_\:" Town of Cross Plains Mr. Lyman Anderson,Chair APR 2 1996 4204 County Trunk P Committee on Zoning and Natural Reso ice 1 Cross Plains,WI 53528 City County Building,Madison,WI 5370 ,: t r ��. '�'�,;... >>� 0., P �'1�1�Nf March 30, 1996 Dear Mr.Anderson: Z ?v"� I1`i�i0'a The Town Board of Cross Plains requests that the county act on our proposed plan amendment to designate the parcels in petitions#6460 and#6523 as"rural development"areas or alternatively as"expansions of the unsewered development district"pursuant to pages 5-11 of our town plan. Both petitions were approved by the town without restrictions. The town discussed and concluded that the following were met by these two petitions: the objectives of our town plan and the criteria for non-farm development on page 5&6,and the policies and criteria for development of the unsewered development district on pages 6&7 The town followed the Procedure for Amending the Town Plan,page 9;the policies for implementing the town plan,that require a plan amendment and rezoning for requested land development,page 10; and the definitions,page 11,of Agricultural Land,housing density,and"rural development areas"or"rural non-farm areas" so-called,the latter more fully identified in the county's Farmland Preservation Plan,page 26,as follows: "Rural Non-Farm Areas-Those areas determined to be most suitable for new nonfarm uses, usually residential. The areas are characterized by small parcel size, some existing nonfarm residences and soils not classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide signs icance. The areas may have been zoned for something other than agriculture. In addition,while the areas contain more than enough land to accommodate future nonfarm growth, consideration was given to the demand for such areas based upon historical development trends." These rural non-farm criteria are met by both petitions,which petitions are characterized by small parcel size,existing nonfarm residences,soils not classified as prime farmland or statewide significance(as shown by plan maps and by the Zoning Department soil classification data),and are within areas that have historical nonfarm development trends. The town considers both petitions to border on existing development areas,since they border on RH parcels with existing on-site sewered development. But,that is a requirement only for expansion of the unsewered development district. It does not apply to the alternative of designating the parcels as rural development areas,by approved policies. These petitions are compatible with existing agricultural use on adjacent land,as required by our town plan on page 7, and neither petition represents sporadic development. This is unquestionable,since for both petitions,the proposed residences would be built adjacent to existing residences,and not intrude on agricultural land. Thus,these petitions meet all relevant objectives and policies of our town plan,including the general welfare of the town,and meet the County Farmland Preservation Plan,page 27 for flexible plan amendment by the town and notifiaction of it to the county. If such addition of single-family residences were claimed contrary to the general welfare of our town,that would be absurd,for it would preclude adding any more residences in our town. The town does not cede to anyone the priority to determine the general welfare of the town with respect to land use and planning. We believe the town retains the priority for that,under state statutes. 60.61(b),which says that authority for town land use and planning"shall be liberally construed in favor of the town exercising these powers." Yours sincerely, cc. Jim Gregorious Gary Gunderman / Tom Smiley Harold Krantz,Town Ctfair