DCPREZ-0000-04420 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2/20/89 TLS:lel Agriculture, Environment and Land Records Committee Supplemental RPC Staff Comments from February 14, 1989 Hearing Petition 4420. In reviewing this proposed lot in the Town of Pleasant Springs, questions were raised regarding the definition of soils of statewide significance. I have attached Appendix 8 of the Dane County Farmland Preservation Plan which is the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Criteria for Farmland Classification. It discusses "Prime Farmland, " "Farmland of Statewide Importance" and other definitions used by USDA. When we assisted the towns in preparing these plans, we used these definitions and delineated these soil groups for each town in the county. Pleasant Springs was one of the first towns to complete their plan and have it approved as part of the County Farmland Preservation Plan in 1978. The Town Planning Committee discussed the criteria for zoning decisions at length. The original policy on this subject has been the same since initial adoption: "3. To limit non-farm residential development to those areas with soils not classified as prime farmland or those of statewide importance nor those shown as having severe or very severe limitations for septic tanks (as shown on soils maps) . " The policy goes on to list other criteria such as lot size, density, and not allowing roadways to cross agricultural lands to reach non- farm development. The final criteria is: "Lots will be approved if all policy criteria are met. " This specific requirement of all criteria has come up several times, and some parcels have been approved which do not meet all criteria. The plan has been reviewed and amended several times since its original adoption in 1978. It was amended in March 1981, with County Board approval of the amendment to the Farmland Preservation Plan in May 1981 . It was amended by the Town again in September 1987, with subsequent County Board approval of the amendment. The particular policy on soil criteria and meeting all requirements has not been amended by either of these subsequent amendments. This is a very specific and objective policy, with very little room for judgment. The petition either meets all the policy criteria or it does not. If it does not meet all the criteria, as in this case, it is not consistent with the plan. If the Committee feels this policy is too restrictive, that concern should be communicated to the Town, and we can explore some amendment to policies. If the plan criteria is simply ignored, there is a weakening of the whole plan. Which policies will be followed, under which conditions? Petition 4421. Our comments for the February 14, . 1989 hearing stand as presented. At the public hearing, the rationale for approval of the R-1A parcel was use of less productive land. That is only one criteria in the plan. The purpose of the density policy is to maintain an overall rural density. Simply because land is less productive does not mean it should be developed fully with houses.