|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
DCPREZ-0000-04887
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
1 Rezones
>
0000 YR
>
DCPREZ-0000-04887
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2016 1:09:50 PM
Creation date
9/29/2016 1:09:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Rezone/CUP
Rezone/CUP - Type
Rezone
Petition Number
04887
Town
Westport Township
Section Numbers
16
AccelaLink
DCPREZ-0000-04887
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
Supplemental Comments - October Zoning Cases <br /> RPC Staff Comments 10/23/90 <br /> Petition 4887. The petitioner called expressing concerns that our <br /> hearing comments seemed to indicate they were proposing to do something <br /> wrong, when neighboring properties had been allowed similar rezoning. <br /> He Is right--neighboring properties have been approved for RH-2 zoning; <br /> however , the adopted public policy remains the same. This area has been <br /> rezoned several times over the past few years. <br /> This site was originally proposed for RH-3 zoning from A-1 Exclusive in <br /> February 1988 (Petition 4157) , as part of a 33 acre proposal Including <br /> the 10 acre parcel to the west and the two parcels to the east . We <br /> noted in our comments that this was an Agricultural Preservation area, <br /> and such a division was Inconsistent with plan policies. The rezoning <br /> was subsequently approved with the two parcels to the east zoned RH-2 <br /> (4 acre minimum) and the two ten acre parcels zoned RH-3 (8 acre <br /> minimum) . <br /> In September 1988, the 10 acre parcel to the west was proposed to be <br /> rezoned to RH-2 (Petition 4334) . Our comments were: <br /> 4334. This Is an agricultural preservation area <br /> in Westport where the density policy was <br /> exceeded by creation of the existing RH-3 <br /> parcel . There is no rationale for further <br /> division unless It may become part of the urban <br /> service area. <br /> The rezoning to RH-2 was granted, thus allowing a split into two <br /> parcels. <br /> Now in October 1990, the church has a financial problem and requests the <br /> same zoning as lands on either side. They want to sell a 5 acre lot . <br /> Thus, the church has made a reasonable request and has an argument to be <br /> treated with equity. <br /> However , the public policy questions remain. Does making an exception <br /> to plan policy obligate the committee and County Board to continue <br /> making such exceptions? If this rezoning Is granted on the rationale of <br /> fairness, where do you draw the line when other similar petitions are <br /> presented? <br /> We also pointed out the community separation issue as a point of <br /> information. Adopted plan policies do advocate community separation, <br /> but they do not specify distances. The Greenspace Committee has <br /> prepared a draft plan which indicates the community separation area to <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.