DCPREZ-0000-06090 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Go/o December 26, 1994 4417 Rocky Dell Road Cross Plains, WI 53528 Mr. Thomas L. Smiley, Director Phone: (608) 831-6653 Community and Regional Development Planning Dane County Regional Planning Commission 217 South Hamilton, Suite 403 Madison, WI 53703 re: Zoning Petition#6090 Dear Director Smiley: I reply to your letter of Dec. 22, 1994, written in response to my letter of November 26, 1994. You did not change your advice to the county that my petition violates the Cross Plains land use plan. You stated two bases for this. Your two bases seem in serious error, if not harmful or capricious. Your First Basis First,you err, to say Cross Plains did not adopt criteria by which substandard parcels may be further subdivided. You relied, out of context, on the following sentence of the town plan (page 5): "Lands in the agriculture district should not be rezoned for non-farm residential development at an overall density of greater than one dwelling per 35 acres owned as of the date of adoption of this plan." It appears you have missed that that sentence is modified by the very next words in the town plan. Those words state conditions for rezoning for non-farm development, and in so doing,they unmistakably make themselves into being an exception to the 35-acre density rule. Thus,they say: "Any land considered for rezoning shall meet all the following criteria. It should be: (1) Land where there has not been a history of economically viable farming activities. - (2) Land which is too small to be economically used for agricultural purposes [four more criteria are also given] .... " [the numbering and the emphases are added by me] So,criterion#1 is that it not be farmable. Criterion#2 is that it be "land which is too small." Clearly, "too small" includes land under 35 acres. But, by providing for rezoning of unfarmable land of under 35 acres,the town plan thereby provides for exceeding one house per 35 acres. Thus, that patently sets aside the 35-acre rule for the rezoning process that is provided in these 6 interlocked criteria. Indeed, the town plan specifies 20,000 sq. feet as the minimum lot size for such rezoning (p. 6). But, in setting aside the 35-acre rule, the town thereby sets aside the bar to approving subdivision of"substandard" parcels. Thus, town policy clearly provides for rezoning and subdividing of"substandard"unfarmable parcels. The Town Board approved my petition as meeting these six criteria,that are provided in its land use plan (pp 5 and 6) for its rezoning of parcels "which are too small" for farming. Do you still dispute the judgment of the Town Board that my petition conforms to its land use plan? Your Second Basis Second,you asserted that my parcel was in the A-1 Exclusive Agriculture District. You ignored that it was put in that district by a blanket ordinance, not on merit. You, among all agencies, know that zoning is being abused, if not based on merit. So, I think you seriously erred, in not addressing the data I offered that shows my parcel is not productive farmland. Ordinance 10.123 expressly applies itself only to land which is farmable. It does not legalize your willfully perpetuating land in the A-1 Exclusive Ag district if that land is not part of a productive farm. Moreover,this issue is relevant, in my meeting rezoning criterion #1 of the town land use plan. I believe that county agencies must protect, not abuse, the rights of the towns and citizens. Conclusion I believe you have no responsible reply but to withdraw your first opinion and to support my petition. Otherwise, I believe you will be acting abusively, and would thus harm your own program, as well as me. Sincerely yours, Robert E. Bowman cc. Favour, Fleck, Gunderman, and Haack.