|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
DCPCUP-0000-00506
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
1 Rezones
>
0000 YR
>
DCPCUP-0000-00506
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/1/2017 11:17:48 AM
Creation date
2/1/2017 11:17:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Rezone/CUP
Rezone/CUP - Type
CUP
Petition Number
00506
Town
Oregon Township
Section Numbers
17
AccelaLink
DCPCUP-0000-00506
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
. <br /> . ~ . ^ <br /> ' . 1. . ^ <br /> ' <br /> ,_ <br /> July 29, 1986 <br /> Ms. Carol Little <br /> County Clerk <br /> Dane County <br /> Room 112 <br /> City-County Building <br /> 210 Monona Avenue <br /> Madison, WI 53709 <br /> RE: Request For Appeal of Deniel <br /> Of Conditional-Use Permit #506 <br /> Dear Ms. Little: <br /> In accordance with county guidelines for the appeal of <br /> denial of conditional-use permits, I am respectfully <br /> requesting that application #506 be reconsidered. <br /> Reasons stated on page #4 of A. E. L. R. minutes of July 22, <br /> 1986 are based more on "opinion" than fact , and what facts <br /> are presented are inaccurate and incorrect . <br /> According to item 2B of the Conditional-Use Permit <br /> guidelines which relate to authority, the committee shall <br /> make findings of fact , and that no permit shall be denied <br /> when standards are met . There has not been any evidence <br /> presented which substantiate the belief that either items 1 <br /> or 2 of the "Finding Of Fact " section will be affected, and <br /> therefore any denial of request for a conditional-use <br /> permit is unjustified. <br /> The following is an item-by-item review of the minutes <br /> which highlight the many discrepencies they contain by <br /> stating facts which are pertinent to the request : <br /> 1 ) There was no information presented which supported the <br /> contention that the distance from residential lots or <br /> properties presents a safety problem. <br /> 2) The proposed airstrip and surrounding area is zoned <br /> agricultural (A-1 ) and only one piece of property (not <br /> three as stated) that abuts the proposed strip can be <br /> considered "residential . " With reference to the 12 other <br /> residential properties within 1 , 000 feet of the proposed <br /> airstrip, that statement can also be disputed on the same <br /> grounds. ua CID 0 <br /> OD <br /> 3) Statements concerning anticipated noise, property values '`_ <br /> and low-flying aircraft are "subjective" and "opinionated, " <br /> and there was no evidence presented to substantiate either Co K <br /> � <br /> L <br /> ~= = - <br /> contention. ' ir2d ‹t <br /> CS <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.